X-Original-To: pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 443399FB2DC; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 21:42:20 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 84363-01; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 21:42:09 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from linuxworld.com.au (unknown [203.34.46.50]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B5D69FB205; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 21:42:08 -0300 (ADT) Received: from linuxworld.com.au (IDENT:swm@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by linuxworld.com.au (8.13.2/8.13.2) with ESMTP id k740g27K016714; Fri, 4 Aug 2006 10:42:02 +1000 Received: from localhost (swm@localhost) by linuxworld.com.au (8.13.2/8.13.2/Submit) with ESMTP id k740g20T016711; Fri, 4 Aug 2006 10:42:02 +1000 Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 10:42:02 +1000 (EST) From: Gavin Sherry To: Michael Glaesemann cc: Tom Lane , Joe Conway , pgsql-patches@postgresql.org, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Values list-of-targetlists patch for comments (was Re: In-Reply-To: <429A0065-78C7-48C9-B2DC-E898988F93E6@seespotcode.net> Message-ID: References: <44B69778.5050104@dunslane.net> <44B7ADFC.90205@dunslane.net> <44BC0432.3040509@joeconway.com> <44BC661F.80609@joeconway.com> <44CFFD2D.8040906@joeconway.com> <18685.1154617090@sss.pgh.pa.us> <429A0065-78C7-48C9-B2DC-E898988F93E6@seespotcode.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.039 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200608/27 X-Sequence-Number: 3645 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