From: | Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Thomas Lockhart <thomas(at)fourpalms(dot)org>, Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: insert statements |
Date: | 2002-03-18 03:36:54 |
Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.40.0203172236160.15302-100000@paprika.michvhf.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com> writes:
> > On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> >> But I *really* don't see the benefit of that <table>(<table>.<col>)
> >> syntax. Especially when it cannot (?? we need a counterexample) lead to
> >> any additional interesting beneficial behavior.
>
> > The only benefit I can come up with is existing stuff written under
> > the impression that it's acceptable.
>
> That's the only benefit I can see either --- but it's not negligible.
> Especially not if the majority of other DBMSes will take this syntax.
>
> I was originally against adding any such thing, but I'm starting to
> lean in the other direction.
>
> I'd want it to error out on "INSERT foo (bar.col)", though ;-)
So would I.
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev(at)michvhf(dot)com http://www.pop4.net
56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-03-18 05:51:19 | Time zone questions |
Previous Message | Nicolas Bazin | 2002-03-17 23:34:30 | Re: User Level Lock question |