Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> On Thu, 2003-07-31 at 15:18, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't really agree that we've "lost functionality" here, though ---
>> you might as well claim that it's a bug that the COPY command forces
>> you to restore the data into a particular table.
> By that logic then what is the point of allowing data dumped as INSERTS
> both with and without column names?
None; we just haven't gotten around to removing code that no longer
pulls its weight. The no-column-name variant is just as dangerous as
it was in the COPY case, IMHO.
regards, tom lane
