Re: Idea: INSERT INTO ... NATURAL SELECT ...
От | Sven Berkvens-Matthijsse |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Idea: INSERT INTO ... NATURAL SELECT ... |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 59a9d777-b160-345c-3a27-cb325f3f1e1d@berkvens.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Idea: INSERT INTO ... NATURAL SELECT ... (Steve Midgley <science@misuse.org>) |
Список | pgsql-sql |
Hi Steve, On 01/02/2019 18.32, Steve Midgley wrote: > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 8:07 AM Sven Berkvens-Matthijsse > <sven@postgresql.berkvens.net <mailto:sven@postgresql.berkvens.net>> > wrote: > > <snip> > INSERT INTO test_table NATURAL SELECT > 1 AS does_not_exist, 2 AS also_nonexistent; > > INSERT INTO test_table NATURAL SELECT 1 AS a, 2 AS a; > > Anyone with any thoughts about this? An implementation would make > inserting data into wide tables by hand very much easier. Because > of the > placement of the NATURAL keyword, I don't think this will conflict > with > any current or future proposal from the SQL standard (except maybe > for > this one :-) ). > > > Hi Sven, > > I can clearly see the benefits of your proposal from a custom SQL > writing perspective. Personally, I would just write this capability as > a DSL in a higher level language and have it translated into the ugly > SQL you're trying to avoid (that has the field values and names split > far apart, visually). Sure, that's definitely an option! The INSERT statements I have are usually part of larger SQL files that do other things as well, but there's no reason I couldn't make a preprocessor or something that expands something custom into the usually formatted INSERT statements. > I have no idea what the implications of your NATURAL keyword on the > implementation of Postgres itself, but I do think (as another person > who writes manual SQL on occasion) that your proposal has merits for > this narrow use-case. Maybe it's just not useful that often because people don't write much SQL by hand these days (maybe they never did, I don't know). > Personally I don't think the use-case is substantial enough to merit > implementing a custom keyword unless there are a lot more people with > use-cases that would benefit also. But if you can write an optional > module that can be installed outside of core, it seems like why not? > Just my two cents. I'm afraid the plug-in architecture of PostgreSQL wouldn't allow my proposal to be implemented that way (unless I'm mistaken and I didn't read and/or understand correctly). > Sincerely, > Steve Thanks for your response and thoughts! Sven
В списке pgsql-sql по дате отправления: