Re: SQL COPY syntax extension (was: Performance on inserts)

From: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>, Oliver Teuber <teuber(at)abyss(dot)devicen(dot)de>, Matthew Kirkwood <matthew(at)hairy(dot)beasts(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SQL COPY syntax extension (was: Performance on inserts)
Date: 2000-08-28 18:29:17
Message-ID: 39AAAF7D.2B98B14B@tm.ee
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
> > That syntax is a lot like a real SQL9x INSERT.
>
> Multiple row constructors in INSERT is one of my to-do items for the
> planned querytree redesign. I have not thought it was worth messing
> with until we're ready to bite that bullet, however.

What is the status of this querytree redesign ?

I'v spent some time trying to get a grip ofthe _exact_ meaning of the
WITH RECURSIVE syntax in SQL3/99 as I badly need it in a project of
mine.

(I know the _general_ meaning - it is for querying tree-structured data
;)

The things the new querytree should address sould be (at least ;) -

1. OUTER JOINS
2. WITH RECURSIVE
3. Support for positioned UPDATE & DELETE (requires probably lot more
than
just querytree redesign)
4. Easyer special-casing of optimisations (like using an index on x for
'select max(x) from t', but not for 'select max(x) from t where n=7'

Is the special mailing-list for querytree redesing active ?

--------------
Hannu

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-08-28 18:30:05 Re: Re: Too many open files (was Re: spinlock problems reported earlier)
Previous Message Hannu Krosing 2000-08-28 18:20:27 Re: SQL COPY syntax extension (was: Performance on inserts)