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

Reply via email to