| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Suraj Kharage <suraj(dot)kharage(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Add support for INSERT ... SET syntax |
| Date: | 2026-03-30 18:52:54 |
| Message-ID: | 883c2802-dfc6-47d3-b24c-04f138c7f93c@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2026-03-30 Mo 11:49 AM, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2026-Mar-30, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> Well, Suraj has kinda beaten me to it, but he didn't invent this syntax.
>> Oracle did <https://oracle-base.com/articles/23/non-positional-insert-into-set-and-insert-into-by-name-clauses-23>
>> and I believe there is a proposal to add it to the standard. (Unlike
>> Suraj's, my WIP patch also supports the INSERT BY NAME variant.)
> Hmm, I don't see any WIP patch from you
No, I haven't submitted it, still working on it. Given Suraj's work, I
will probably just submit a patch for INSERT BY NAME now.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Lakhin | 2026-03-30 19:00:00 | Re: Don't synchronously wait for already-in-progress IO in read stream |
| Previous Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2026-03-30 18:50:37 | Re: [BUG] Excessive memory usage with update on STORED generated columns. |