Sent from my iPad
On 03-May-2013, at 0:07, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote: > On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 01:40:59PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> writes: >>> On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 06:28:53PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote: >>>> prior/after? Both are unreserved keywords atm and it seems far less >>>> likely to have conflicts than new/old. >> >>> BEFORE/AFTER seems more logical to me. >> >> Works for me. >> >> regards, tom lane > > Maybe we can make BEFORE and AFTER implied aliases rather than > keywords. What say? > > I agree.Overall,I like the concept. Regards, Atri -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
