From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Limin Liu <limin(at)pumpkinnet(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] extra syntax on INSERT |
Date: | 2001-06-01 00:58:34 |
Message-ID: | 25287.991357114@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Limin Liu <limin(at)pumpkinnet(dot)com> writes:
> I just realized that INSERT allows us to have more syntax than the
> manual said. I wonder if we want to elimiate it or keep it with more
> documentation on the INSERT statment?
This will likely go away when we get around to upgrading INSERT to the
full SQL spec --- certainly I'd feel no compunction about removing any
non-SQL syntax that happens to be supported now, if it gets in the way
of spec compliance.
In short, no I don't want to document it, because I don't want people
to start relying on it.
> For the first one, I believe that is due to reusing the definition of
> target_list/target_el.
Yes. There's not a lot of difference in the implementations of
INSERT ... VALUES and INSERT ... SELECT, at the moment.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Orsinger | 2001-06-01 01:18:53 | Re: PostgreSQL security concerns |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-06-01 00:54:20 | Re: A question on EFFECTIVE_CACHE_SIZE |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-06-01 04:45:45 | Re: Imperfect solutions |
Previous Message | Dave Blasby | 2001-05-31 22:49:24 | Initial Release of PostGIS |