Imagine that you have about 30 fields.
Ok, then your first SQL is done.
Now, you just have to add 10 more fields.
Its very easy to get lost. If we have this implementation, you could just add
Field31 = 'text',
Field32 = 'text'
...
wherever you want.
This is just a PLUS. I just don't see any problem by doing this.
Even knowing that this is not Standard SQL-Syntax, I just see this as a benefit feature.
Another reason is that we have more people migrating from MySQL to Postgre than any other database server. People don't migrate to Postgre from Oracle. Hardly from MS SQL Server.
It just makes easier to migrate users from other db servers.
And this is sure not hard to implement.
Today its easier to migrate to PostgreSQL from MySQL than from PostgreSQL to MySQL.
In few words I have given you more reason to add this feature than not to add it.
Think about it.
2007/7/31, Rafael Azevedo <rafael@webpro.com.br>:Yes it is. And it makes easier to migrate from MySQL servers to PostgreSQL.
Today its easier to migrate to MySQL from PostgreSQL than from PostgreSQL to MySQL.
2007/7/31, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>:Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Rafael Azevedo" < rafael@webpro.com.br > writes:
>
> > Unstead of having to type all the insert syntax, using ("column") names, you
> > could do the same as MySQL does.
> > for example:
> >
> > INSERT INTO Table SET
> > "Field1" = 'text',
> > "Field2" = 'text';
> >
> > So it would make it easier and faster to develop applications using Postgre.
>
> I'm a bit mystified here. What exactly about this syntax is easier or faster?
> You still have to list all the column names. It looks like it would require
> just as much typing as the regular syntax, no?
>
> Or is it that you get to reuse the same string you use for doing an update?
As far as I can see, the _feature_ is matching MySQL optional
non-standard syntax.
--
Bruce Momjian < bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
