ON COMMIT DROP

Started by Christopher Kings-Lynneover 21 years ago4 messages
#1Christopher Kings-Lynne
chriskl@familyhealth.com.au

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

Chris

#2Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
In reply to: Christopher Kings-Lynne (#1)
Re: ON COMMIT DROP

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

#3Neil Conway
neilc@samurai.com
In reply to: Tom Lane (#2)
Re: ON COMMIT DROP

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

#4Christopher Kings-Lynne
chriskl@familyhealth.com.au
In reply to: Tom Lane (#2)
Re: ON COMMIT DROP

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