> INSERT INTO t1 (c1) VALUES (1), (2);
>
> would be executed in a similar fashion to:
>
> INSERT INTO t1 (c1) VALUES (1);
> INSERT INTO t1 (c1) VALUES (2);
>
> Does this sound reasonable?
I debated doing the above too. In fact, I had a partial
implementation at one point.
However, the resulting purpose of allowing such a construct is to
enable the speeds copy achieves with the variation that is found in an
insert. So, the above transformation method really doesn't accomplish
much except a new style for many inserts. But it is quite a bit
easier simply to code each insert individually if there is a minimal
speed gain. Large strings may reach query length limits in other
systems using this style (look at a MySQL dump sometime). You're
really only good for about 50 or 60 records in a single insert
statement there.
I'd tend to run it like a copy that can resolving expressions and
defaults.
