| From: | Lee Kindness <lkindness(at)csl(dot)co(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Lee Kindness <lkindness(at)csl(dot)co(dot)uk> |
| Subject: | Re: COPY syntax |
| Date: | 2002-10-17 08:33:54 |
| Message-ID: | 15790.30194.391022.633016@kelvin.csl.co.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> > > > COPY table TO STDOUT WITH BINARY OIDS;
> > > > Shouldn't the "binary", being an adjective, be attached to something?
> > > Uh, it is attached to WITH?
> > Attached to a noun phrase, like "mode" or "output". Note that all the
> > other things the typically follow WITH in any command are nouns.
> Should we add an optional MODE after BINARY?
Are you serious? You'd like to mess up the COPY syntax even further
for a purely grammatical reason!
A good few months ago I put formward an idea to change (well migrate
really) to "COPY TABLE" rather than "COPY" - this would allow a well
designed and thoughtout syntax for the new version while retaining old
compatibility.
egards, Lee Kindness.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Enrique Filberto | 2002-10-17 08:56:12 | Looping through fields |
| Previous Message | Anuradha Ratnaweera | 2002-10-17 06:39:37 | Re: Postgresql and multithreading |