| From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chris Bitmead <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Ben Adida <ben(at)openforce(dot)net>, Andrew Selle <aselle(at)upl(dot)cs(dot)wisc(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Inserting a select statement result into another table |
| Date: | 2000-08-18 00:27:08 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.10.10008171721090.98929-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Well, If I'm reading the spec correctly,
INSERT INTO references a query expression
which doesn't include ORDER BY as an option, so this
is even less SQL since we're actually not just changing
it to allow our non-standard bit, but we're changing
a piece that is explicitly not allowed in the spec.
That being said, I also think it's probably a useful extension
given the LIMIT clause.
On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Chris Bitmead wrote:
>
> He does ask a legitimate question though. If you are going to have a
> LIMIT feature (which of course is not pure SQL), there seems no reason
> you shouldn't be able to insert the result into a table.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ben Adida | 2000-08-18 00:53:08 | Re: Inserting a select statement result into another table |
| Previous Message | Alfred Perlstein | 2000-08-18 00:01:18 | VACUUM optimization ideas. |