| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hans-Juergen Schoenig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Paolo Magnoli <pmagnoli(at)systemevolution(dot)it>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, eg(at)cybertec(dot)at |
| Subject: | Re: R: feature proposal ... |
| Date: | 2005-09-22 20:08:59 |
| Message-ID: | 1127419739.4865.7.camel@fuji.krosing.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On N, 2005-09-22 at 21:34 +0200, Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote:
> absolutely - the main advantage of the syntax tweak is that you can
> add parameters more easily.
Perhaps "COPY from SQL FUNCTIONS" is what wou need ?
Or should we piggypack on (future) work needed for hierarchical queries
and have "COPY from WITH" like this.
WITH copysource (f1,f2,f3) as (SELECT ... )
COPY copysource TO stdout;
The full syntax (as a railroad diagram) of WITH for hierarchical queries
is available at http://gppl.moonbone.ru/with_clause.gif .
But with can be used also for non-hierarchical queries, as kind of
inline temp view definition, and this copy syntax would be extension of
this use.
--
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-09-22 20:16:57 | Re: R: feature proposal ... |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-09-22 20:01:49 | Re: 2 forks for md5? |
