| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Gareth Palmer <gareth(at)internetnz(dot)net(dot)nz>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Implement INSERT SET syntax |
| Date: | 2020-03-25 12:51:25 |
| Message-ID: | 633d0216-510a-7395-0956-9bdebd83434e@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-03-24 18:57, Tom Lane wrote:
> No doubt that's all fixable, but the realization that some cases of
> this syntax are*not* just syntactic sugar for standards-compliant
> syntax is giving me pause. Do we really want to get out front of
> the SQL committee on extending INSERT in an incompatible way?
What is the additional functionality that we are considering adding here?
The thread started out proposing a more convenient syntax, but it seems
to go deeper now and perhaps not everyone is following.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Prabhat Sahu | 2020-03-25 12:52:55 | Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables |
| Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2020-03-25 12:46:56 | Re: pg_upgrade fails with non-standard ACL |