From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com>, rohtodeveloper <rohtodeveloper(at)outlook(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] please review source(SQLServer compatible) |
Date: | 2014-06-23 17:22:55 |
Message-ID: | 1403544175.59058.YahooMailNeo@web122302.mail.ne1.yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com> wrote:
> On 06/23/2014 04:51 PM, rohtodeveloper wrote:
>> 1.SQL statement support
>> INSERT statement without INTO keyword
>> DELETE statement without FROM keywork
>
> Why would we want this?
I'm pretty sure that the only argument for it is to ease migration
of software from other DBMS products which allow that non-standard
syntax for people who have chosen to use the non-standard form of
the statement instead of the standard syntax (which is also
available in all cases that I know of).
If the SQL standard were static, I would actually lean toward
allowing it, to make it easier for people to switch to PostgreSQL.
The biggest down side I see is the possibility that some future
version of the standard might implement some new syntax which is
more difficult to implement if we need to also support this
non-standard variation.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-06-23 17:42:41 | Re: pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-06-23 17:21:22 | Re: Use a signal to trigger a memory context dump? |