Re: SET syntax in INSERT

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SET syntax in INSERT
Date: 2016-01-14 19:15:52
Message-ID: CAFj8pRA+aOXgraxCBQe_fnVK5p0SSKAFRrFJJUsYcJg1PxPPkg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2016-01-14 20:09 GMT+01:00 Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>:

> On 2016-01-14 8:06 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>> Probably there is less risk than 7 years ago, but still creating own
>> syntax
>> isn't the best idea. This is syntactic sugar only and different from ANSi
>> SQL or common standard.
>>
>
> So is RETURNING,

is it ANSI SQL redundant?

> UPSERT,

the behave is partially different than MERGE, so different syntax is 100%
valid

> PL/PgSQL and many other useful features.
>

PL/pgSQL is PL/SQL clone, and because the base is Ada, it cannot be
compatible with SQL/PSM.

Regards

Pavel

>
>
> .m
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2016-01-14 19:33:34 Re: SET syntax in INSERT
Previous Message Marc Mamin 2016-01-14 19:14:54 Re: SET syntax in INSERT