From: | Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Kevin O'Gorman" <kogorman(at)pacbell(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Re: [GENERAL] A rare error |
Date: | 2000-10-28 03:57:14 |
Message-ID: | Pine.BSO.4.10.10010272354110.2291-100000@spider.pilosoft.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> (SELECT * INTO newtable FROM table1) UNION (SELECT * FROM table2);
Possibly a silly (and definitely not standards-conformant) suggestion:
Maybe grammar should be amended to allow for
(SELECT * FROM table1) UNION (SELECT * FROM table2) INTO newtable
i.e.
union_expr:
(select_expr) union (union_expr) [into into_table]
> Notice the INTO? Doesn't this seem like an odd place for it, in what
> appears to be a subordinate query? Where else would it go? How would
> it grab you in an expression with five or more levels of parens?
> How about five levels of parens and a complicated targetlist before
> you get to the INTO?
>
> What I'm suggesting is that the parens be allowed only on the right
> hand side of the set operations. How does that strike you?
>
> >
> > regards, tom lane
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-10-28 04:03:28 | Re: Can't import date using copy |
Previous Message | Alex Pilosov | 2000-10-28 03:39:29 | Re: Summary: what to do about INET/CIDR |