Re: Speaking of New Features (named pairs of values)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:36:44 -0400
Mark's right (as to my thoughts), it would be an "in addition to" kind of thing.
Funny, I never considered the INSERT INTO SELECT FROM...I suppose CTAS would be the same (one or the other) as well.
Ultimately, I want to see if Oracle does take into consideration items/Ideas on Oracle Mix. I think it would be a great move for them, whether it is this idea or another, to utilize that (Mix) method of communication.
This probably isn't the best audience though as there are one or two known fanatics in the crowd. Some ever Certifiable. :)
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Mark W. Farnham <mwf_at_rsiz.com> wrote:
> without being either an advocate or against the syntax, I don’t think he
> is suggesting eliminating any existing valid syntax.
> But even if he was, then
> insert into t select ( a => x, b => y) from r;
> would seem to meet the formalism.
> If you prefer this syntax for source code there really is no impediment to
> hauling out something like yacc and writing it. You’ll just have to pass
> over your “source” code before you shove it at a SQL parser.
> Heh, you could probably write it in PERL… and start using it in a few days.
> *From:* oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:
> oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] *On Behalf Of *Michael Moore
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 10, 2009 7:28 PM
> *To:* oracle-l
> *Subject:* Re: Speaking of New Features
> If it was as chet suggested, then how could you do
> insert into t (a,b) select x,y from r;
> It would mean you would need to have two valid syntaxes for the INSERT.
> 1.) insert into t(a,b) values ('a','b');
> 2) insert into t (a => 'a', b=>'b');
> both would need to be valid. Not that that is a terrible thing but if you
> are going to have both 'named' and 'positional' for INSERT, then you would
> probably want both forms available for UPDATE as well.