From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
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 19:17:52 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070912171117l331b3912pd427ed1b44839098@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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.
Yeah, I think that's good.
> Not sure about the raw-data case --- maybe a predetermined name is
> okay there.
I would expect so.
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2009-12-17 19:45:36 | Re: COPY IN as SELECT target |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-12-17 19:05:15 | Re: determine snapshot after obtaining locks for first statement |