On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Michael Glaesemann wrote: > On Aug 3, 2006, at 23:58 , Tom Lane wrote: > > > > Should we give VALUES its own reference page? That doesn't quite > > seem helpful either. > > > > I think we should go for a separate reference page, as VALUES appears > to be expanding quite a bit. Up till now I've thought of VALUES only > in conjunction with UPDATE, so perhaps a useful alternative would be > to keep all of the information regarding VALUES and its syntax would > be as a large part of the UPDATE reference page, though that would > imply by placement (even if explained otherwise) that VALUES is only > a part of the UPDATE syntax, which it no longer (?) is. That brings > me back to the idea of VALUES deserving its own reference page.
... with update? I associate it very closely with INSERT. After all, INSERT is the only statement where we've had VALUES as part of the grammar. Thanks, Gavin ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
