Imagine that you have about 30 fields.
Ok, then your first SQL is done.
Now, you just have to add 10 more fields.
Its very easy to get lost. If we have this implementation, you could just
add
Field31 = 'text',
Field32 = 'text'
...
wherever you want.
This is just a PLUS. I just don't see any problem by doing this.
Even knowing that this is not Standard SQL-Syntax, I just see this as a
benefit feature.
Another reason is that we have more people migrating from MySQL to Postgre
than any other database server. People don't migrate to Postgre from Oracle.
Hardly from MS SQL Server.
It just makes easier to migrate users from other db servers.
And this is sure not hard to implement.
Today its easier to migrate to PostgreSQL from MySQL than from PostgreSQL to
MySQL.
In few words I have given you more reason to add this feature than not to
add it.
Think about it.
2007/7/31, Rafael Azevedo [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes it is. And it makes easier to migrate from MySQL servers to
PostgreSQL.
Today its easier to migrate to MySQL from PostgreSQL than from PostgreSQL
to MySQL.
2007/7/31, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Gregory Stark wrote:
Rafael Azevedo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unstead of having to type all the insert syntax, using (column)
names, you
could do the same as MySQL does.
for example:
INSERT INTO Table SET
Field1 = 'text',
Field2 = 'text';
So it would make it easier and faster to develop applications using
Postgre.
I'm a bit mystified here. What exactly about this syntax is easier or
faster?
You still have to list all the column names. It looks like it would
require
just as much typing as the regular syntax, no?
Or is it that you get to reuse the same string you use for doing an
update?
As far as I can see, the _feature_ is matching MySQL optional
non-standard syntax.
--
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
