RE: Speaking of New Features

From: Goulet, Richard <>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:37:02 -0400
Message-ID: <>

Since IMHO the standard encourages extensions I don't think you can find a DBMS out there today that doesn't have at least one.  

Dick Goulet
Senior Oracle DBA/NA Team Lead
PAREXEL International  

[] On Behalf Of Bellows, Bambi
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 9:55 AM To:; Cc: oracle-l
Subject: RE: Speaking of New Features

Oracle's been into the SQL extensions since well before the 92 standard was set in stone, witness DECODE, etc.  

[] On Behalf Of Dan Norris
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 9:00 PM To:
Cc: oracle-l
Subject: Re: Speaking of New Features  

You may be appealing to the wrong people. The SQL 92 standard specifies the INSERT statement syntax (page 388 of However, I suppose it's always possible to create "extensions" to those standards too.


On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:37 PM, chet justice <> wrote:

Any thoughts on the "new" syntax for INSERT statements below?

INSERT INTO my_table
  ( id => seq.nexval,
    create_date => SYSDATE,
    update_date => SYSDATE,

    col1 => 'A', 
    col2 => 'SOMETHING', 
    col3 => 'SOMETHING', 
    col4 => 'SOMETHING', 
    col5 => 'SOMETHING', 
    col6 => 'SOMETHING', 
    col7 => 'SOMETHING', 
    col8 => 'SOMETHING', 
    col9 => 'SOMETHING', 
    col10 => 'SOMETHING', 
    col11 => 'SOMETHING', 
    col12 => 'SOMETHING', 

    col13 => 'SOMETHING',
    col14 => 'SOMETHING' );

Thought of one day while trying to clean up (make human readable) someone else's code. I would either get too many values or not enough. After copying the INSERT columns and subsequent VALUES clause into an Excel spreadsheet to compare them side by side, I thought, hey, what about named notation?

Anyway, I created the "Idea" on Oracle Mix here <> if you are inclined to, one way or another, to vote.


chet justice


Received on Thu Sep 10 2009 - 09:37:02 CDT

Original text of this message