| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Lee Kindness <lkindness(at)csl(dot)co(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: COPY syntax |
| Date: | 2002-10-17 19:17:27 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0210171845470.928-100000@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Lee Kindness writes:
> Are you serious? You'd like to mess up the COPY syntax even further
> for a purely grammatical reason!
We already "messed up" the COPY syntax in this release to achieve better
user friendliness. I do not think it's unreasonable to review this goal
from a variety of angles.
> A good few months ago I put formward an idea to change (well migrate
> really) to "COPY TABLE" rather than "COPY" - this would allow a well
> designed and thoughtout syntax for the new version while retaining old
> compatibility.
Well, I am the first to agree that the current syntax is not well
designed, but I must admit that I don't quite see what benefit simply
adding "TABLE" would have.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-10-17 19:18:05 | Re: PL/Perl and Perl 5.8 |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-17 19:17:09 | Re: orderRules() now a bad idea? |