insert statements
I'm trying to use latest version of PostNuke which uses adodb for the
database layer. The problem is in the insert and update statements.
For example:
insert into foo(foo.a) values(1);
fails because the table name is used. Update statements also include the
table name. Both fail. Does anyone know of a workaround?
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net
56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber writes:
For example:
insert into foo(foo.a) values(1);
fails because the table name is used. Update statements also include the
table name. Both fail. Does anyone know of a workaround?
Completely loudly to whomever wrote that SQL. It's completely
non-standard.
(The implication I'm trying to make is that there's no way to make
PostgreSQL accept that statement. Adding this as an extension has been
rejected in the past.)
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Vince Vielhaber writes:
For example:
insert into foo(foo.a) values(1);
fails because the table name is used. Update statements also include the
table name. Both fail. Does anyone know of a workaround?Completely loudly to whomever wrote that SQL. It's completely
non-standard.(The implication I'm trying to make is that there's no way to make
PostgreSQL accept that statement. Adding this as an extension has been
rejected in the past.)
Yeah, that's kinda what I expected. There's just under 1700 insert and
update statements but only 1200 selects. Neither option sounds good at
this point.
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net
56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Vince Vielhaber writes:
For example:
insert into foo(foo.a) values(1);
fails because the table name is used. Update statements also include the
table name. Both fail. Does anyone know of a workaround?Completely loudly to whomever wrote that SQL. It's completely
non-standard.(The implication I'm trying to make is that there's no way to make
PostgreSQL accept that statement. Adding this as an extension has been
rejected in the past.)
I'm now wondering why it was rejected. I couldn't try this last nite
so I just tried it now. Here's with Sybase 11.0.3.3 :
1> create table foo(a int)
2> go
1> insert into foo(a) values(1)
2> go
(1 row affected)
1> insert into foo(foo.a) values(2)
2> go
(1 row affected)
1>
And I suspect more than just mysql and sybase accept either syntax.
Right now I'm modifying postnuke but that's only a short term solution,
and I wouldn't want to add it to PostgreSQL either 'cuze if it remains
rejected that would hamper upgrades. ROCK --> ME <-- HARD PLACE :)
There are really no other decent CMSs available that support PostgreSQL.
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net
56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
Why not send in your changes to PostNuke along with the appropriate
section from the SQL specs?
Surely they'll apply a reasoned patch which improves conformance to
the SQL standard and doesn't break anything in the process. I'd
suspect both SyBase, and MySQL can also take insert into foo (a) as
well.
--
Rod Taylor
This message represents the official view of the voices in my head
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vince Vielhaber" <vev@michvhf.com>
To: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] insert statements
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Vince Vielhaber writes:
For example:
insert into foo(foo.a) values(1);
fails because the table name is used. Update statements also
include the
table name. Both fail. Does anyone know of a workaround?
Completely loudly to whomever wrote that SQL. It's completely
non-standard.(The implication I'm trying to make is that there's no way to make
PostgreSQL accept that statement. Adding this as an extension has
been
rejected in the past.)
I'm now wondering why it was rejected. I couldn't try this last
nite
so I just tried it now. Here's with Sybase 11.0.3.3 :
1> create table foo(a int)
2> go
1> insert into foo(a) values(1)
2> go
(1 row affected)
1> insert into foo(foo.a) values(2)
2> go
(1 row affected)
1>And I suspect more than just mysql and sybase accept either syntax.
Right now I'm modifying postnuke but that's only a short term
solution,
and I wouldn't want to add it to PostgreSQL either 'cuze if it
remains
rejected that would hamper upgrades. ROCK --> ME <-- HARD PLACE
:)
There are really no other decent CMSs available that support
PostgreSQL.
Vince.
--
======================================================================
====
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com
56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
======================================================================
====
---------------------------(end of
broadcast)---------------------------
Show quoted text
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Rod Taylor wrote:
Why not send in your changes to PostNuke along with the appropriate
section from the SQL specs?Surely they'll apply a reasoned patch which improves conformance to
the SQL standard and doesn't break anything in the process. I'd
suspect both SyBase, and MySQL can also take insert into foo (a) as
well.
Look below, I showed both syntaxes with Sybase. Since I don't have a
copy of the SQL specs I can't send them the appropriate section or I
would have already. Care to forward that appropriate section?
--
Rod TaylorThis message represents the official view of the voices in my head
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vince Vielhaber" <vev@michvhf.com>
To: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] insert statementsOn Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Vince Vielhaber writes:
For example:
insert into foo(foo.a) values(1);
fails because the table name is used. Update statements also
include the
table name. Both fail. Does anyone know of a workaround?
Completely loudly to whomever wrote that SQL. It's completely
non-standard.(The implication I'm trying to make is that there's no way to make
PostgreSQL accept that statement. Adding this as an extension hasbeen
rejected in the past.)
I'm now wondering why it was rejected. I couldn't try this last
nite
so I just tried it now. Here's with Sybase 11.0.3.3 :
1> create table foo(a int)
2> go
1> insert into foo(a) values(1)
2> go
(1 row affected)
1> insert into foo(foo.a) values(2)
2> go
(1 row affected)
1>And I suspect more than just mysql and sybase accept either syntax.
Right now I'm modifying postnuke but that's only a short termsolution,
and I wouldn't want to add it to PostgreSQL either 'cuze if it
remains
rejected that would hamper upgrades. ROCK --> ME <-- HARD PLACE
:)
There are really no other decent CMSs available that support
PostgreSQL.
Vince.
--======================================================================
====Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com
56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com======================================================================
====---------------------------(end of
broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net
56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
As snipped from:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2000-10/msg00030.php (All
my stuff is in paper form)
What's your definition of "other dbs"? The above statement is quite
clearly in violation of the SQL92 and SQL99 specifications:
<insert statement> ::=
INSERT INTO <table name>
<insert columns and source>
<insert columns and source> ::=
[ <left paren> <insert column list> <right paren> ]
<query expression>
| DEFAULT VALUES
<insert column list> ::= <column name list>
<column name list> ::=
<column name> [ { <comma> <column name> }... ]
<column name> ::= <identifier>
I'm not particularly excited about supporting non-SQL variant syntaxes
that add no functionality.
regards, tom lane
--
Rod Taylor
This message represents the official view of the voices in my head
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vince Vielhaber" <vev@michvhf.com>
To: "Rod Taylor" <rbt@zort.ca>
Cc: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net>;
<pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] insert statements
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Rod Taylor wrote:
Why not send in your changes to PostNuke along with the
appropriate
section from the SQL specs?
Surely they'll apply a reasoned patch which improves conformance
to
the SQL standard and doesn't break anything in the process. I'd
suspect both SyBase, and MySQL can also take insert into foo (a)
as
well.
Look below, I showed both syntaxes with Sybase. Since I don't have
a
copy of the SQL specs I can't send them the appropriate section or I
would have already. Care to forward that appropriate section?--
Rod TaylorThis message represents the official view of the voices in my head
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vince Vielhaber" <vev@michvhf.com>
To: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] insert statementsOn Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Vince Vielhaber writes:
For example:
insert into foo(foo.a) values(1);
fails because the table name is used. Update statements
also
include the
table name. Both fail. Does anyone know of a workaround?
Completely loudly to whomever wrote that SQL. It's completely
non-standard.(The implication I'm trying to make is that there's no way to
make
PostgreSQL accept that statement. Adding this as an extension
has
been
rejected in the past.)
I'm now wondering why it was rejected. I couldn't try this last
nite
so I just tried it now. Here's with Sybase 11.0.3.3 :
1> create table foo(a int)
2> go
1> insert into foo(a) values(1)
2> go
(1 row affected)
1> insert into foo(foo.a) values(2)
2> go
(1 row affected)
1>And I suspect more than just mysql and sybase accept either
syntax.
Right now I'm modifying postnuke but that's only a short term
solution,
and I wouldn't want to add it to PostgreSQL either 'cuze if it
remains
rejected that would hamper upgrades. ROCK --> ME <-- HARD PLACE
:)
There are really no other decent CMSs available that support
PostgreSQL.
Vince.
--
======================================================================
====
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com
56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory
Online Giftshop Superstore
======================================================================
====
---------------------------(end of
broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
Vince.
--
======================================================================
====
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com
56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
======================================================================
====
Show quoted text
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Rod Taylor wrote:
As snipped from:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2000-10/msg00030.php (All
my stuff is in paper form)
What's your definition of "other dbs"? The above statement is quite
clearly in violation of the SQL92 and SQL99 specifications:
And nowhere does it say that <column name> cannot be qualified with
the table name in front of it. Looking at the entire message noted
above the list of other dbs that support it is now Oracle, Sybase,
MS-SQL and mysql. If "other dbs" ends up the equivilent of "everything
but PostgreSQL" then which one is non-standard?
<insert statement> ::=
INSERT INTO <table name>
<insert columns and source><insert columns and source> ::=
[ <left paren> <insert column list> <right paren> ]
<query expression>
| DEFAULT VALUES<insert column list> ::= <column name list>
<column name list> ::=
<column name> [ { <comma> <column name> }... ]<column name> ::= <identifier>
I'm not particularly excited about supporting non-SQL variant syntaxes
that add no functionality.regards, tom lane
--
Rod TaylorThis message represents the official view of the voices in my head
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vince Vielhaber" <vev@michvhf.com>
To: "Rod Taylor" <rbt@zort.ca>
Cc: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net>;
<pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] insert statementsOn Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Rod Taylor wrote:
Why not send in your changes to PostNuke along with the
appropriate
section from the SQL specs?
Surely they'll apply a reasoned patch which improves conformance
to
the SQL standard and doesn't break anything in the process. I'd
suspect both SyBase, and MySQL can also take insert into foo (a)as
well.
Look below, I showed both syntaxes with Sybase. Since I don't have
a
copy of the SQL specs I can't send them the appropriate section or I
would have already. Care to forward that appropriate section?--
Rod TaylorThis message represents the official view of the voices in my head
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vince Vielhaber" <vev@michvhf.com>
To: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] insert statementsOn Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Vince Vielhaber writes:
For example:
insert into foo(foo.a) values(1);
fails because the table name is used. Update statements
also
include the
table name. Both fail. Does anyone know of a workaround?
Completely loudly to whomever wrote that SQL. It's completely
non-standard.(The implication I'm trying to make is that there's no way to
make
PostgreSQL accept that statement. Adding this as an extension
has
been
rejected in the past.)
I'm now wondering why it was rejected. I couldn't try this last
nite
so I just tried it now. Here's with Sybase 11.0.3.3 :
1> create table foo(a int)
2> go
1> insert into foo(a) values(1)
2> go
(1 row affected)
1> insert into foo(foo.a) values(2)
2> go
(1 row affected)
1>And I suspect more than just mysql and sybase accept either
syntax.
Right now I'm modifying postnuke but that's only a short term
solution,
and I wouldn't want to add it to PostgreSQL either 'cuze if it
remains
rejected that would hamper upgrades. ROCK --> ME <-- HARD PLACE
:)
There are really no other decent CMSs available that support
PostgreSQL.
Vince.
--======================================================================
====
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com
56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground DirectoryOnline Giftshop Superstore
======================================================================
====
---------------------------(end of
broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
Vince.
--======================================================================
====Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com
56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com======================================================================
====
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net
56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
Out of curiosity, does SyBase allow you to qualify it with
schema.table.column?
--
Rod Taylor
This message represents the official view of the voices in my head
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vince Vielhaber" <vev@michvhf.com>
To: "Rod Taylor" <rbt@zort.ca>
Cc: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net>;
<pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] insert statements
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Rod Taylor wrote:
As snipped from:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2000-10/msg00030.php
(All
my stuff is in paper form)
What's your definition of "other dbs"? The above statement is
quite
clearly in violation of the SQL92 and SQL99 specifications:
And nowhere does it say that <column name> cannot be qualified with
the table name in front of it. Looking at the entire message noted
above the list of other dbs that support it is now Oracle, Sybase,
MS-SQL and mysql. If "other dbs" ends up the equivilent of
"everything
but PostgreSQL" then which one is non-standard?
<insert statement> ::=
INSERT INTO <table name>
<insert columns and source><insert columns and source> ::=
[ <left paren> <insert column list> <right
paren> ]
<query expression>
| DEFAULT VALUES<insert column list> ::= <column name list>
<column name list> ::=
<column name> [ { <comma> <column name> }... ]<column name> ::= <identifier>
I'm not particularly excited about supporting non-SQL variant
syntaxes
that add no functionality.
regards, tom lane
--
Rod TaylorThis message represents the official view of the voices in my head
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vince Vielhaber" <vev@michvhf.com>
To: "Rod Taylor" <rbt@zort.ca>
Cc: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net>;
<pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] insert statementsOn Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Rod Taylor wrote:
Why not send in your changes to PostNuke along with the
appropriate
section from the SQL specs?
Surely they'll apply a reasoned patch which improves
conformance
to
the SQL standard and doesn't break anything in the process.
I'd
suspect both SyBase, and MySQL can also take insert into foo
(a)
as
well.
Look below, I showed both syntaxes with Sybase. Since I don't
have
a
copy of the SQL specs I can't send them the appropriate section
or I
would have already. Care to forward that appropriate section?
--
Rod TaylorThis message represents the official view of the voices in my
head
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vince Vielhaber" <vev@michvhf.com>
To: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] insert statementsOn Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Vince Vielhaber writes:
For example:
insert into foo(foo.a) values(1);
fails because the table name is used. Update statements
also
include the
table name. Both fail. Does anyone know of a
workaround?
Completely loudly to whomever wrote that SQL. It's
completely
non-standard.
(The implication I'm trying to make is that there's no way
to
make
PostgreSQL accept that statement. Adding this as an
extension
has
been
rejected in the past.)
I'm now wondering why it was rejected. I couldn't try this
last
nite
so I just tried it now. Here's with Sybase 11.0.3.3 :
1> create table foo(a int)
2> go
1> insert into foo(a) values(1)
2> go
(1 row affected)
1> insert into foo(foo.a) values(2)
2> go
(1 row affected)
1>And I suspect more than just mysql and sybase accept either
syntax.
Right now I'm modifying postnuke but that's only a short
term
solution,
and I wouldn't want to add it to PostgreSQL either 'cuze if
it
remains
rejected that would hamper upgrades. ROCK --> ME <-- HARD
PLACE
:)
There are really no other decent CMSs available that support
PostgreSQL.
Vince.
--
======================================================================
====
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com
56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4
Networking
Online Campground Directory
Online Giftshop Superstore
======================================================================
====
---------------------------(end of
broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
Vince.
--
======================================================================
====
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com
56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory
Online Giftshop Superstore
======================================================================
====
Vince.
--
======================================================================
====
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com
56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
======================================================================
====
Show quoted text
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Rod Taylor wrote:
Out of curiosity, does SyBase allow you to qualify it with
schema.table.column?
Just tried it... Yes.
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net
56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Rod Taylor wrote:
As snipped from:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2000-10/msg00030.php (All
my stuff is in paper form)
What's your definition of "other dbs"? The above statement is quite
clearly in violation of the SQL92 and SQL99 specifications:And nowhere does it say that <column name> cannot be qualified with
the table name in front of it. Looking at the entire message noted
AFAICS periods are not valid in identifiers that are not double
quoted (section 5.2 has the rules on regular identifiers and delimited
ones)
<regular identifier> ::= <identifier body>
<identifier body> ::=
<identifier start> [ { <underscore> | <identifier part> }... ]
<identifier start> ::= !! See the Syntax Rules
<identifier part> ::=
<identifier start>
| <digit>
identifier start is a simple latin letter, a letter in the character
repertoire that's in use, a syllable in the repertoire or an ideograph in
the repertoire.
identifier is defined as either a regular identifier or a delimited one
(ie double quoted). So column name cannot contain periods.
That being said, is this something that's worth adding due to general
usage by other systems?
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Stephan Szabo wrote:
<identifier start> ::= !! See the Syntax Rules
<identifier part> ::=
<identifier start>
| <digit>
identifier start is a simple latin letter, a letter in the character
repertoire that's in use, a syllable in the repertoire or an ideograph in
the repertoire.identifier is defined as either a regular identifier or a delimited one
(ie double quoted). So column name cannot contain periods.That being said, is this something that's worth adding due to general
usage by other systems?
In an odd way, I guess that's what I'm asking. At what point is it us
that's non-standard?
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net
56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> writes:
What's your definition of "other dbs"? The above statement is quite
clearly in violation of the SQL92 and SQL99 specifications:
And nowhere does it say that <column name> cannot be qualified with
the table name in front of it.
Au contraire, that is EXACTLY what that bit of BNF is saying. If
they'd meant to allow this construction then the BNF would refer to
<qualified name>, not just <identifier>.
Looking at the entire message noted
above the list of other dbs that support it is now Oracle, Sybase,
MS-SQL and mysql. If "other dbs" ends up the equivilent of "everything
but PostgreSQL" then which one is non-standard?
Out of curiosity, what do these guys do if I try the obvious
insert into foo (bar.col) ...
regards, tom lane
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> writes:
What's your definition of "other dbs"? The above statement is quite
clearly in violation of the SQL92 and SQL99 specifications:And nowhere does it say that <column name> cannot be qualified with
the table name in front of it.Au contraire, that is EXACTLY what that bit of BNF is saying. If
they'd meant to allow this construction then the BNF would refer to
<qualified name>, not just <identifier>.Looking at the entire message noted
above the list of other dbs that support it is now Oracle, Sybase,
MS-SQL and mysql. If "other dbs" ends up the equivilent of "everything
but PostgreSQL" then which one is non-standard?Out of curiosity, what do these guys do if I try the obvious
insert into foo (bar.col) ...
Looks like Sybase ignores the bar:
1> create table foo(a int)
2> go
1> insert into foo(bar.a) values(1)
2> go
(1 row affected)
1> select * from foo
2> go
a
-----------
1
(1 row affected)
1>
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net
56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> writes:
There are really no other decent CMSs available that support
PostgreSQL.
bricolage.thepirtgroup.com/
Mike.
Looking at the entire message noted
above the list of other dbs that support it is now Oracle, Sybase,
MS-SQL and mysql. If "other dbs" ends up the equivilent of "everything
but PostgreSQL" then which one is non-standard?
The one(s) that intentionally violate or gratuitously extend published
language standards? ;)
Looks like Sybase ignores the bar:
:)
So would you like to write the specification for this "standard
behavior"? We'll submit it for SQL200x :)
- Thomas
Sorry for the previous sarcastic response.
But I *really* don't see the benefit of that <table>(<table>.<col>)
syntax. Especially when it cannot (?? we need a counterexample) lead to
any additional interesting beneficial behavior.
- Thomas
Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> writes:
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
But I *really* don't see the benefit of that <table>(<table>.<col>)
syntax. Especially when it cannot (?? we need a counterexample) lead to
any additional interesting beneficial behavior.
The only benefit I can come up with is existing stuff written under
the impression that it's acceptable.
That's the only benefit I can see either --- but it's not negligible.
Especially not if the majority of other DBMSes will take this syntax.
I was originally against adding any such thing, but I'm starting to
lean in the other direction.
I'd want it to error out on "INSERT foo (bar.col)", though ;-)
regards, tom lane
Import Notes
Reply to msg id not found: Pine.BSF.4.40.0203151456410.15302-100000@paprika.michvhf.comReference msg id not found: Pine.BSF.4.40.0203151456410.15302-100000@paprika.michvhf.com | Resolved by subject fallback
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> writes:
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
But I *really* don't see the benefit of that <table>(<table>.<col>)
syntax. Especially when it cannot (?? we need a counterexample) lead to
any additional interesting beneficial behavior.The only benefit I can come up with is existing stuff written under
the impression that it's acceptable.That's the only benefit I can see either --- but it's not negligible.
Especially not if the majority of other DBMSes will take this syntax.I was originally against adding any such thing, but I'm starting to
lean in the other direction.I'd want it to error out on "INSERT foo (bar.col)", though ;-)
So would I.
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net
56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber wrote:
Looks like Sybase ignores the bar:
1> create table foo(a int)
2> go
1> insert into foo(bar.a) values(1)
2> go
(1 row affected)
1> select * from foo
2> go
a
-----------
1(1 row affected)
1>
This looks like a parser error to me. It probably only takes the
last bit of the name and ignores all the qualifiers...
--
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9
Tom Lane wrote:
I'd want it to error out on "INSERT foo (bar.col)", though ;-)
And on "INSERT foo (bar.foo.col)" as well.
This means we will have to take this check down to the analyze
phase (where the schema where foo is located is finally known,
if it was not specified explicitly).
We could easily take "INSERT bar.foo (bar.foo.col)" but the
above one is trouble.
--
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9
Import Notes
Reference msg id not found: Pine.BSF.4.40.0203151456410.15302-100000@paprika.michvhf.com
Vince Vielhaber wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Rod Taylor wrote:
Out of curiosity, does SyBase allow you to qualify it with
schema.table.column?Just tried it... Yes.
What if you give it a bogus schema name? Does it error out or just
ignore it?
--
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Fernando Nasser wrote:
Vince Vielhaber wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Rod Taylor wrote:
Out of curiosity, does SyBase allow you to qualify it with
schema.table.column?Just tried it... Yes.
What if you give it a bogus schema name? Does it error out or just
ignore it?
If I get a few mins before I leave I'll try it, but I would guess
that it ignores it because when I tried INSERT INTO foo(bar.a), bar
didn't exist and Sybase still accepted it.
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net
56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================
I'd want it to error out on "INSERT foo (bar.col)", though ;-)
And on "INSERT foo (bar.foo.col)" as well.
Why accept above at all ? Seems much too error prone, I would eighter
accept table with schema or without schema, mixing both cases seems
unnecessarily confusing and error prone to me.
If at all, I would allow:
INSERT bar.foo (bar.foo.col)
INSERT foo (foo.col)
Would that be enough for the initial problem case ?
Andreas
Import Notes
Resolved by subject fallback