| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: COPY IN as SELECT target |
| Date: | 2009-12-17 18:50:55 |
| Message-ID: | 5461.1261075855@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> You might want to specify column names as well as well as types, in
> this second case.
Well, we could do it like VALUES: arbitrarily name the columns column1
... columnN and tell people to use an alias if they want other names.
If it's convenient to fit column names into the syntax, good, but we
don't absolutely have to.
[ thinks... ] Although actually the obvious SQL-ish syntax for a rowtype
specification is
( colname typename [ , ... ] )
so that's probably what we'd want to do in the processed-data case.
Not sure about the raw-data case --- maybe a predetermined name is
okay there.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-17 19:00:28 | Re: determine snapshot after obtaining locks for first statement |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-12-17 18:50:08 | Re: determine snapshot after obtaining locks for first statement |