| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Thomas Kellerer <shammat(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why forbid "INSERT INTO t () VALUES ();" |
| Date: | 2020-06-29 14:12:46 |
| Message-ID: | 20200629141246.GY3125@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greetings,
* Peter Eisentraut (peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> On 2020-06-25 18:07, Tom Lane wrote:
> >So I'm still not convinced we should do this. "MySQL is incapable
> >of conforming to the standard" is a really lousy reason for us to do
> >something.
>
> Conformance to the standard means that the syntax described in the standard
> behaves as specified in the standard. It doesn't mean you can't have
> additional syntax that is not in the standard.
Agreed in general with the caveat that we don't want to support syntax
that the standard might decide later means something else.
For this case, however, I tend to agree with the other folks on this
thread who feel that we should add it- since it seems quite unlikely
that the standard folks would define this syntax to somehow mean
something else.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2020-06-29 14:30:36 | Re: Fwd: PostgreSQL: WolfSSL support |
| Previous Message | Ants Aasma | 2020-06-29 13:23:41 | Re: track_planning causing performance regression |