On 1/30/09, Sam Mason <sam@samason.me.uk> wrote:
> quite often (i.e. a VALUES command with many singletons). This seems
> a bit annoying and appears to be what you were suggesting you wanted
> before (although you killed the relevant bit of context, making me think
> we may be talking about different things).
we are. See the title of the thread: 'using composite types in
insert/update'. that's what I'm talking about. I especially am not
talking about the 'values' statement.
> For several reasons; mainly because SQL is an abortion of a language,
> it's got no regularity and attempts to justify requirements because of
> "symmetry" will end up causing more headaches.
>
> Another way of saying what you seem to be saying above is: I want things
> to work correctly, unless I happen to have a column name that happens to
> be the same as the table at which point I want everything to break.
Upthread, I noted the usefulness in writing triggers. There are many
other uses. btw, symmetry (making insert work more similarly to
select) is tangential but surely a good thing.
> Record *types* are most definitely not first class objects;
> record/composite *values* on the other hand have been gaining support
well, I used the terms record types and composite types
interchangeably in this discussion. Sorry for the confusion.
I don't know if you are arguing for or against the idea of 'update foo
set foo = foo' working. (if against, why?)
merlin
