Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] extra syntax on INSERT

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Limin Liu <limin(at)pumpkinnet(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] extra syntax on INSERT
Date: 2001-06-01 00:58:34
Message-ID: 25287.991357114@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
Limin Liu <limin(at)pumpkinnet(dot)com> writes:
> I just realized that INSERT allows us to have more syntax than the
> manual said.  I wonder if we want to elimiate it or keep it with more
> documentation on the INSERT statment?

This will likely go away when we get around to upgrading INSERT to the
full SQL spec --- certainly I'd feel no compunction about removing any
non-SQL syntax that happens to be supported now, if it gets in the way
of spec compliance.

In short, no I don't want to document it, because I don't want people
to start relying on it.

> For the first one, I believe that is due to reusing the definition of
> target_list/target_el.

Yes.  There's not a lot of difference in the implementations of
INSERT ... VALUES and INSERT ... SELECT, at the moment.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-06-01 04:45:45
Subject: Re: Imperfect solutions
Previous:From: Dave BlasbyDate: 2001-05-31 22:49:24
Subject: Initial Release of PostGIS

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Craig OrsingerDate: 2001-06-01 01:18:53
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL security concerns
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-06-01 00:54:20
Subject: Re: A question on EFFECTIVE_CACHE_SIZE

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group