Re: Speaking of New Features

How about the OUTER join syntax?  That would be considered an extension
wouldn't it?  (I couldn't find a reference to the + operator in the
standards for joins anyway).

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Dan Norris <dannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> You may be appealing to the wrong people. The SQL 92 standard specifies the
> INSERT statement syntax (page 388 of
> http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~shadow/sql/sql1992.txt<http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/%7Eshadow/sql/sql1992.txt>).
> However, I suppose it's always possible to create "extensions" to those
> standards too.
>
> Dan
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:37 PM, chet justice <chet.justice@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>> Any thoughts on the "new" syntax for INSERT statements below?
>>
>> INSERT INTO my_table
>>   ( id => seq.nexval,
>>     create_date => SYSDATE,
>>     update_date => SYSDATE,
>>     col1 => 'A',
>>     col2 => 'SOMETHING',
>>     col3 => 'SOMETHING',
>>     col4 => 'SOMETHING',
>>     col5 => 'SOMETHING',
>>     col6 => 'SOMETHING',
>>     col7 => 'SOMETHING',
>>     col8 => 'SOMETHING',
>>     col9 => 'SOMETHING',
>>     col10 => 'SOMETHING',
>>     col11 => 'SOMETHING',
>>     col12 => 'SOMETHING',
>>     col13 => 'SOMETHING',
>>     col14 => 'SOMETHING' );
>>
>> Thought of one day while trying to clean up (make human readable) someone
>> else's code.  I would either get too many values or not enough.  After
>> copying the INSERT columns and subsequent VALUES clause into an Excel
>> spreadsheet to compare them side by side, I thought, hey, what about named
>> notation?
>>
>> Anyway, I created the "Idea" on Oracle Mix 
>> here<https://mix.oracle.com/ideas/94278-position-insert-syntax>if you are 
>> inclined to, one way or another, to vote.
>>
>> chet
>>
>> --
>> chet justice
>> www.oraclenerd.com
>>
>>
>


-- 
chet justice
www.oraclenerd.com

Other related posts: