Re: Shouldn't this be an error?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Shouldn't this be an error?
Date: 2001-01-29 16:44:39
Message-ID: 24914.980786679@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com> writes:
> Shouldn't this insert fail? This is 7.0.3.

> template1=# create table foo(x int,y varchar(10),z datetime);
> CREATE
> template1=# insert into foo(x,y,z) values(1,'asdf');
> INSERT 19222 1

We've always allowed trailing columns to be omitted, whether a column
name list is specified or not. This is not per spec --- SQL92 and SQL99
both say that all the columns must be provided --- but I'm rather
hesitant to enforce the spec's stricter rule at this point. Seems like
it'd probably break some existing apps.

A compromise position would be to allow dropping trailing columns only
when the column name list is omitted.

Comments?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message KuroiNeko 2001-01-29 16:55:14 Re: Security hole in PL/pgSQL
Previous Message Ross J. Reedstrom 2001-01-29 16:43:52 Re: Sure enough, the lock file is gone