Thread: ON COMMIT DROP

Is there any reason why the 'ON COMMIT' behaviour feature is not 
available if you use CREATE TABLE AS ...?

Chris

Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
> Is there any reason why the 'ON COMMIT' behaviour feature is not 
> available if you use CREATE TABLE AS ...?

Where exactly would you propose to stick it in the syntax?  Can you do
it without introducing more fully-reserved words than we have already?
Is there any spec or other-product precedent for it?  (Offhand I can't
even find CREATE TABLE AS in SQL99...)
        regards, tom lane

On Mon, 2004-04-19 at 02:16, Tom Lane wrote:
> (Offhand I can't even find CREATE TABLE AS in SQL99...)

This is semi-OT, but CREATE TABLE AS is (new) in SQL2003. At few glance,
the spec's notion of the command is about the same as ours, except for a
few minor syntactic differences (e.g. the [ WITH [ NO ] DATA ] clause
the spec allows for; I'm planning to implement that soon).

-Neil

> Where exactly would you propose to stick it in the syntax?

Good question, I don't know.

> Can you do
> it without introducing more fully-reserved words than we have already?

No idea.

> Is there any spec or other-product precedent for it?  (Offhand I can't
> even find CREATE TABLE AS in SQL99...)

Weeell.  I was just minorly annoyed at having to create table with on 
commit behaviour, then insert into select from instead of being able to 
do it in one step...

Chris