From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Values list-of-targetlists patch for comments (was Re: [PATCHES] |
Date: | 2006-08-04 07:02:09 |
Message-ID: | 200608040902.09945.peter_e@gmx.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Wrong question. SELECT (for the general case of multi-row results)
> and VALUES are exactly parallel in the SQL grammar; the right
> question is "according to what theory are you allowed to issue a
> general SELECT?"
The "top-level" SELECT for interactive use is
<direct SQL statement> ::= <directly executable statement> <semicolon>
<directly executable statement> ::= <direct SQL data statement> | ...
<direct SQL data statement> ::= <direct select statement: multiple rows> | ...
But this actually does resolve as just VALUES (something), so nevermind.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-08-04 20:35:09 | Re: Values list-of-targetlists patch for comments (was Re: |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-04 04:56:26 | Re: VALUES clause memory optimization |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-08-04 07:11:07 | Re: 8.2 features status |
Previous Message | Dennis Bjorklund | 2006-08-04 06:27:02 | Re: 8.2 features status |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2006-08-04 09:57:54 | Re: LWLock statistics collector |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-04 04:56:26 | Re: VALUES clause memory optimization |