Message-ID: <1332107267.6915.2.camel@vanquo.pezone.net>
Subject: Re: Command Triggers, patch v11
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Thom
	Brown <thom@linux.com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 23:47:47 +0200
In-Reply-To: <24814.1332021870@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <m24nufq466.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr>
	<201203162237.38813.andres@anarazel.de>
	<21818.1331934775@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<201203162317.43818.andres@anarazel.de> <7094.1331996567@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<9503.1332006327@sss.pgh.pa.us> <24814.1332021870@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Mime-Version: 1.0

On lör, 2012-03-17 at 18:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm not sure what we should do instead.  We have gotten push-back before
> anytime we changed the command tag for an existing command (and in fact
> it seems that we intentionally added the rowcount display in 9.0, which
> means there are people out there who care about that functionality).
> On the other hand, the traditional output for CREATE TABLE AS doesn't
> seem to satisfy the principle of least astonishment.  A third
> consideration is that if we are pushing CREATE TABLE AS as the preferred
> spelling, people will probably complain if it omits functionality that
> SELECT INTO provides; so I'm not sure that "SELECT n" in one case and
> "CREATE TABLE AS" in the other would be a good idea either.  Any
> opinions what to do here? 

Another consideration is that the SQL command tags are defined by the
SQL standard.  So if we were to change it, then it should be "CREATE
TABLE".  I'm not convinced that it should be changed, though.  (I recall
cross-checking our list against the SQL standard in the past, so there
might have been discussion on this already.)