On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> You might want to specify column names as well as well as types, in >> this second case. > > Well, we could do it like VALUES: arbitrarily name the columns column1 > ... columnN and tell people to use an alias if they want other names. > If it's convenient to fit column names into the syntax, good, but we > don't absolutely have to. > > [ thinks... ] Although actually the obvious SQL-ish syntax for a rowtype > specification is > > ( colname typename [ , ... ] ) > > so that's probably what we'd want to do in the processed-data case.
Yeah, I think that's good. > Not sure about the raw-data case --- maybe a predetermined name is > okay there. I would expect so. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
