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

Re: ANSI Compliant Inserts

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: ANSI Compliant Inserts
Date: 2002-04-15 03:26:25
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> In general I'm suspicious of rejecting cases we used to accept for
>> no good reason other than that it's not in the spec.  There is a LOT
>> of Postgres behavior that's not in the spec.

> TODO has:
>     o Disallow missing columns in INSERT ... VALUES, per ANSI

Where's the discussion that's the basis of that entry?  I don't recall
any existing consensus on this (though maybe I forgot).

There are a fair number of things in the TODO list that you put there
because you liked 'em, but that doesn't mean everyone else agrees.
I certainly will not accept "once it's on the TODO list it cannot be

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-04-15 03:37:20
Subject: Re: ANSI Compliant Inserts
Previous:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2002-04-15 03:25:54
Subject: RFC: Generating useful names for foreign keys and checks

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Magnus Naeslund(f)Date: 2002-04-15 03:35:51
Subject: Win32 Error descriptions + config
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-04-15 03:21:54
Subject: Re: ANSI Compliant Inserts

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group