Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >>Actually, it occurs to me that the SET WITHOUT CLUSTER form CAN recurse.
> >> Should I make it do that, even though the CLUSTER ON form cannot?
> >
> > I just thought about this. CLUSTER is more of a storage-level
> > specification, rather than a logical one. Seems it is OK that WITOUTH
> > CLUSTER not recurse into inherited tables, especially since the CLUSTER
> > command does not.
>
> The patch I submitted earlier already does do recursion - I don't see
> why it shouldn't really. It's better than failing saying that legal
> grammar is in fact illegal :)
Uh, if the CLUSTER doesn't recurse, the WITHOUT shouldn't either, I
think, and throwing an error seems fine to me, even if it isn't the same
wording as a syntax error.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073