Re: [HACKERS] Re: SQL compliance

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: SQL compliance
Date: 2000-02-20 16:34:38
Message-ID: 4651.951064478@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On 2000-02-19, Tom Lane mentioned:
>> What we don't seem to have is full <table value constructor> per 7.2;
>> we only allow VALUES ... in INSERT, whereas SQL allows it in other
>> constructs where a sub-SELECT would be legal,

> Not required by Intermediate Level.

No, but it's useful enough that we should have it...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-02-20 17:41:44 Re: [HACKERS] Re: SQL compliance - why -- comments only at psql level?
Previous Message Hannu Krosing 2000-02-20 15:52:43 Re: [HACKERS] Re: SQL compliance - why -- comments only at psql level?