Re: [HACKERS] Re: SQL compliance - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Re: SQL compliance
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.21.0002201439580.3142-100000@localhost.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Re: SQL compliance  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Re: SQL compliance
List pgsql-hackers
On 2000-02-19, Tom Lane mentioned:

> What we don't seem to have is full <table value constructor> per 7.2;
> we only allow VALUES ... in INSERT, whereas SQL allows it in other
> constructs where a sub-SELECT would be legal,

Not required by Intermediate Level.

> and we don't accept
> multiple rows in VALUES.  For example, you should be able to write
> 
>     INSERT INTO t VALUES (1,2,3), (4,5,6), (7,8,9), ...
> 
> but we don't accept that now.

Not required either.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders väg 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net                   75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/            Sweden



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Meskes
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: UESQLC
Next
From: Hannu Krosing
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: SQL compliance - why -- comments only at psql level?