| From: | Antoine <melser(dot)anton(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: OT - select + must have from - sql standard syntax? |
| Date: | 2006-06-14 06:36:22 |
| Message-ID: | 92d3a4950606132336j1220301en9e5d33c64ad2794a@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> > The spec does require a FROM clause in SELECT (at least as of SQL99, did
> > not check SQL2003). However, it's clearly mighty useful to allow FROM
> > to be omitted for simple compute-this-scalar-result problems. You
> > should respond to the Oracle guy that "SELECT whatever FROM dual" is not
> > in the standard either (certainly the spec does not mention any such
> > table).
Thanks for your answers guys. I was pretty sure DUAL wasn't in the
standard (never seen it outside an oracle context) but wasn't at all
sure about the FROM.
Cheers
Antoine
ps. shame the standard isn't "freely" consultable to save you guys
silly OT questions!
--
This is where I should put some witty comment.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | hubert depesz lubaczewski | 2006-06-14 07:52:26 | how to partition disks |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2006-06-14 04:15:30 | Re: OT - select + must have from - sql standard syntax? |