Re: Speaking of New Features
- From: Mathias Magnusson <mathias.magnusson@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: michaeljmoore@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 07:38:21 +0200
Mike,
The current form could of course not be made invalid. It would cause
literally every Oracle system in existence to not work on the new
version.
I don\t think it means that insert would have to support positional.
Oracle has frequently made improvements that just work for one thing.
There are joins that only work with ansi syntax and there are tons of
features that requires CBO. When it coexisted with RBO, there was
never a view at Oracle that new features should work with RBO.
Mathias
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 1:28 AM, Michael Moore<michaeljmoore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If it was as chet suggested, then how could you do
>
> insert into t (a,b) select x,y from r;
>
> It would mean you would need to have two valid syntaxes for the INSERT.
>
> 1.) insert into t(a,b) values ('a','b');
> and
> 2) insert into t (a => 'a', b=>'b');
>
> both would need to be valid. Not that that is a terrible thing but if you
> are going to have both 'named' and 'positional' for INSERT, then you would
> probably want both forms available for UPDATE as well.
> Mike
>
>
>
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
