| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, "howachen(at)gmail(dot)com" <howachen(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql vs mysql |
| Date: | 2006-07-11 19:08:21 |
| Message-ID: | 22875.1152644901@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> On 7/11/2006 1:08 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>> I thought it was in the SQL 99 standard...
> The SQL bible doesn't say SQL99, it says it is a DB2 specific feature.
If you're speaking of INSERT INTO foo VALUES (a, row), (another, row), ...
that's in SQL92. See 7.2 <table value constructor>:
<table value constructor> ::=
VALUES <table value constructor list>
<table value constructor list> ::=
<row value constructor> [ { <comma> <row value constructor> }... ]
It's really pretty lame that we still don't have any support at all for
this :-(. Allowing it everywhere the spec says <table value constructor>
should be allowed might be nontrivial ... but maybe we should just fix
the INSERT ... VALUES case for now.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-07-11 19:11:26 | Re: pgsql vs mysql |
| Previous Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2006-07-11 18:59:14 | Re: pgsql vs mysql |