From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SELECT INTO deprecation |
Date: | 2020-12-15 22:13:25 |
Message-ID: | 20201215221325.GA14807@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 09:48:54PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2020-12-03 20:26, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 2020-12-03 16:34, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > As I recall, a whole lot of the pain we have with INTO has to do
> > > with the semantics we've chosen for INTO in a set-operation nest.
> > > We think you can write something like
> > >
> > > SELECT ... INTO foo FROM ... UNION SELECT ... FROM ...
> > >
> > > but we insist on the INTO being in the first component SELECT.
> > > I'd like to know exactly how much of that messiness is shared
> > > by SQL Server.
> >
> > On sqlfiddle.com, this works:
> >
> > select a into t3 from t1 union select a from t2;
> >
> > but this gets an error:
> >
> > select a from t1 union select a into t4 from t2;
> >
> > SELECT INTO must be the first query in a statement containing a UNION,
> > INTERSECT or EXCEPT operator.
>
> So, with that in mind, here is an alternative proposal that points out that
> SELECT INTO has some use for compatibility.
Do we really want to carry around confusing syntax for compatibility? I
doubt we would ever add INTO now, even for compatibility.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2020-12-15 22:28:09 | Re: Minor documentation error regarding streaming replication protocol |
Previous Message | Cary Huang | 2020-12-15 22:08:50 | Re: pg_rewind copies |