Re: ANSI Compliant Inserts

IMHO, from a developers/users prospective I want to get atleast a NOTICE
when they mismatch, and really preferably I want the query to fail
because if I'm naming a column list then forget a value for it something
is wrong...

Bruce Momjian wrote:

>Tom Lane wrote:
>
>>Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>>
>>>>In general I'm suspicious of rejecting cases we used to accept for
>>>>no good reason other than that it's not in the spec. There is a LOT
>>>>of Postgres behavior that's not in the spec.
>>>>
>>>TODO has:
>>> o Disallow missing columns in INSERT ... VALUES, per ANSI
>>>
>>Where's the discussion that's the basis of that entry? I don't recall
>>any existing consensus on this (though maybe I forgot).
>>
>
>I assume someone (Peter?) looked it up and reported that our current
>behavior was incorrect and not compliant. I didn't do the research in
>whether it was compliant.
>
>>There are a fair number of things in the TODO list that you put there
>>because you liked 'em, but that doesn't mean everyone else agrees.
>>I certainly will not accept "once it's on the TODO list it cannot be
>>questioned"...
>>
>
>I put it there because I didn't think there was any question. If I was
>wrong, I can add a question mark to it.
>
>Do you want to argue we should continue allowing it? Also, what about
>missing trailling columns in COPY?
>
>If we continue allowing missing INSERT columns, I am not sure we can
>claim it is an extension or whether the standard requires the query to
>fail.
>