| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: SQL compliance |
| Date: | 2000-02-20 14:22:14 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.21.0002201439580.3142-100000@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2000-02-19, Tom Lane mentioned:
> What we don't seem to have is full <table value constructor> per 7.2;
> we only allow VALUES ... in INSERT, whereas SQL allows it in other
> constructs where a sub-SELECT would be legal,
Not required by Intermediate Level.
> and we don't accept
> multiple rows in VALUES. For example, you should be able to write
>
> INSERT INTO t VALUES (1,2,3), (4,5,6), (7,8,9), ...
>
> but we don't accept that now.
Not required either.
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2000-02-20 15:49:56 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: SQL compliance - why -- comments only at psql level? |
| Previous Message | Michael Meskes | 2000-02-20 10:03:52 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: UESQLC |