| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: select ... into question |
| Date: | 2003-05-01 17:32:11 |
| Message-ID: | 17302.1051810331@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> our parser allows the into clause only between the target list and the
> from clause. While this is surely the was I usually use that clause,
> others dbms are different. Informix e.g. allows it also as the very last
> clause after the having clause.
> Is there a reason (standard?) why we don't allow that, or shall I go
> ahead and commit a parser change to allow this order?
SELECT INTO is so brain-damaged already that we should not enlarge the
scope of syntaxes it commandeers. (People ought to be using CREATE
TABLE AS for this, IMHO.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-05-01 17:35:20 | Re: Should we SetQuerySnapshot() between actions of a rule? |
| Previous Message | Nigel J. Andrews | 2003-05-01 17:04:49 | Re: [HACKERS] "Adding missing from clause" (replacement) |