2008/2/29, Brent Friedman <bfriedman@scanonline.com>:
> If you don't like the standard sql implementation, you could use plsql
> or any language to make an abstraction layer/wrapper for this
> functionality. Just pass everything as a key/value pair, in an array or
> hashtable structure, to your abstraction layer/wrapper, and it can cycle
> through the data structure to do the insert or update for you.
Ok. I have been playing these tricks for the last 25 years. Please no
more tricks. If someone knows something about the reason for the
insert syntax in instead of the Update syntax then please elaborate on
it.
Regards, Clodoaldo Pinto Neto
> In very rough psuedo-code, something like
>
> create my_data_structure {
> table = employees,
> first_name = sally,
> last_name = smith,
> date_of_birth = 2008-01-01
> }
>
> call function mywrapper (my_data_structure)
>
> .....
> function cycles through array, and creates an sql string
> dynamically
>
> This may have problems with constraints, foreign keys, etc.
>
>
>
> Clodoaldo wrote:
> > 2008/2/29, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>:
> >
> >> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 01:17:20PM -0300, Clodoaldo wrote:
> >> > When inserting into a table and there are many columns to be inserted
> >> > it is hard to synchronize columns to values:
> >>
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Is there some reason for the insert syntax to be the way it is in
> >> > instead of the much easier to get it right Update syntax?:
> >>
> >>
> >> Because it's what the SQL standard says. If you don't like it I suggest
> >> you take it up with them... But it's a little late to change now I
> >> think.
> >>
> >
> > I know about the standards and I'm not blaming postgresql. I just want
> > to know if it is worth to bring the the matter to some responsible
> > group.
> >
> > Regards, Clodoaldo Pinto Neto
> >
>
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
> >
> >
>
>
