On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> The current syntax was chosen because it is SQL-compatible. Adding
> redundant syntax to save a few characters without any new functionality
> (performance, resource usage, safety, etc.) is a weak argument in the
> overall scheme of things.
Yeah -- exactly. The few minor things that are not 100% SQL
compatible I find to be major headaches. Incompatible usage of INTO
for example.
This thread has been going on for quite some time now and is starting
to become somewhat circular. Perhaps we ought to organize the
various ideas and pain points presented in a wiki along with
conclusions, and in some cases if there is no solution that is
compatible with the current syntax.
merlin
