On 12/15/20 5:13 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 09:48:54PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 2020-12-03 20:26, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2020-12-03 16:34, Tom Lane wrote:
> > As I recall, a whole lot of the pain we have with INTO has to do
> > with the semantics we've chosen
On 2020-12-17 02:30, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 06:07:08PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Right, we would very likely not add it now. But it doesn't seem to cause a
lot of ongoing maintenance burden, so if there is a use case, it's not
unreasonable to keep it around. I have
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 06:07:08PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Right, we would very likely not add it now. But it doesn't seem to cause a
> lot of ongoing maintenance burden, so if there is a use case, it's not
> unreasonable to keep it around. I have no other motive here, I was just
> curio
On 2020-12-15 23:13, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Do we really want to carry around confusing syntax for compatibility? I
doubt we would ever add INTO now, even for compatibility.
Right, we would very likely not add it now. But it doesn't seem to
cause a lot of ongoing maintenance burden, so if ther
On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 09:48:54PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2020-12-03 20:26, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 2020-12-03 16:34, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > As I recall, a whole lot of the pain we have with INTO has to do
> > > with the semantics we've chosen for INTO in a set-operation nest.
>
On 2020-12-03 20:26, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 2020-12-03 16:34, Tom Lane wrote:
As I recall, a whole lot of the pain we have with INTO has to do
with the semantics we've chosen for INTO in a set-operation nest.
We think you can write something like
SELECT ... INTO foo FROM ... UNION SELE
On 2020-12-03 16:34, Tom Lane wrote:
As I recall, a whole lot of the pain we have with INTO has to do
with the semantics we've chosen for INTO in a set-operation nest.
We think you can write something like
SELECT ... INTO foo FROM ... UNION SELECT ... FROM ...
but we insist on the INTO bein
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> Interesting. This appears to be the case. SQL Server uses SELECT INTO
> to create a table, and does not appear to have CREATE TABLE AS.
> So maybe we should keep it, but adjust the documentation to point out
> this use case.
That argument makes sense, but only if ou
On 2020-12-03 00:54, Michael Paquier wrote:
I got to wonder about the impact when migrating applications
though. SELECT INTO has a different meaning in Oracle, but SQL server
creates a new table like Postgres.
Interesting. This appears to be the case. SQL Server uses SELECT INTO
to create a
On 2020-12-02 18:58, Stephen Frost wrote:
I also found some gratuitous uses of SELECT INTO in various tests and
documentation (not ecpg or plpgsql of course). Here is a patch to adjust
those to CREATE TABLE AS.
If we aren't actually removing SELECT INTO then I don't know that it
makes sense to
Stephen Frost schrieb am 02.12.2020 um 18:58:
> We should either remove it, or remove the comments that it's deprecated,
> not try to make it more deprecated or try to somehow increase the
> recommendation to not use it.
(I am writing from a "user only" perspective, not a developer)
I don't see a
On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 03:35:46PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, if we want to kill it let's just do so. The negative language in
> the reference page has been there since (at least) 7.1, so people can
> hardly say they didn't see it coming.
+1. I got to wonder about the impact when migrating a
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com) wrote:
>> While reading about deprecating and removing various things in other
>> threads, I was wondering about how deprecated SELECT INTO is. There are
>> various source code comments about this, but the SELECT INTO
On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 12:58:36PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com) wrote:
> > While reading about deprecating and removing various things in
> > other threads, I was wondering about how deprecated SELECT INTO
> > is. There are va
Greetings,
* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com) wrote:
> While reading about deprecating and removing various things in other
> threads, I was wondering about how deprecated SELECT INTO is. There are
> various source code comments about this, but the SELECT INTO reference page
>
st 2. 12. 2020 v 12:55 odesÃlatel Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com> napsal:
> While reading about deprecating and removing various things in other
> threads, I was wondering about how deprecated SELECT INTO is. There are
> various source code comments about this, but the SELEC
> On 2 Dec 2020, at 12:54, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
> While reading about deprecating and removing various things in other threads,
> I was wondering about how deprecated SELECT INTO is. There are various
> source code comments about this, but the SELECT INTO reference page only
> contains
While reading about deprecating and removing various things in other
threads, I was wondering about how deprecated SELECT INTO is. There are
various source code comments about this, but the SELECT INTO reference
page only contains soft language like "recommended". I'm proposing the
attached p
18 matches
Mail list logo
