| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Vitaly Burovoy <vitaly(dot)burovoy(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SET syntax in INSERT |
| Date: | 2016-01-14 20:25:56 |
| Message-ID: | 15351.1452803156@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Vitaly Burovoy <vitaly(dot)burovoy(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> You can't now do something like
>>> INSERT INTO foo (arraycol[2], arraycol[4]) VALUES(7, 11);
>> Hm ... actually, you might want to try that before opining
> So what's the problem, then? It seems like a decision has already been
> made.
Yeah, but is it a decision that we might later find to be at odds
with a future SQL standard? The more places we embed that behavior,
the more risk we take.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2016-01-14 20:37:36 | Re: SET syntax in INSERT |
| Previous Message | Vitaly Burovoy | 2016-01-14 20:21:34 | Re: SET syntax in INSERT |