On Sat, 2009-11-14 at 09:11 -0800, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2009, at 8:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I had been manfully restraining myself from re-opening this discussion,
> > but yeah I was thinking the same thing. The original objection to using
> > just WITH was that it wasn't very clear what you were doing "with" the
> > operator; but that was back when we had a different initial keyword for
> > the construct. EXCLUDE ... WITH ... seems to match up pretty naturally.
>
> You're more man than I, Tom, but yeah, with EXCLUDE, WITH works well on its own, methinks.
Changed in new patch here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1258226849.708.97.camel@jdavis
Regards,Jeff Davis