| From: | Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Lockhart <thomas(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Rod Taylor From pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org Fri Mar 15 15:59:34 2002 |
| Subject: | Re: insert statements |
| Date: | 2002-03-15 20:06:45 |
| Message-ID: | 1560.1016225675@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
>> But I *really* don't see the benefit of that <table>(<table>.<col>)
>> syntax. Especially when it cannot (?? we need a counterexample) lead to
>> any additional interesting beneficial behavior.
> The only benefit I can come up with is existing stuff written under
> the impression that it's acceptable.
That's the only benefit I can see either --- but it's not negligible.
Especially not if the majority of other DBMSes will take this syntax.
I was originally against adding any such thing, but I'm starting to
lean in the other direction.
I'd want it to error out on "INSERT foo (bar.col)", though ;-)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Copeland | 2002-03-15 21:03:11 | Re: User Level Lock question |
| Previous Message | Lance Ellinghaus | 2002-03-15 19:54:30 | Re: User Level Lock question |