From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: SELECT INTO deprecation
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 20:26:59 +0100
Message-ID: <a71c0215-3ab1-abab-babe-2778b17aa1d7@enterprisedb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1723856.1607009655@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <96dc0df3-e13a-a85d-d045-d6e2c85218da@enterprisedb.com>
<20201202175836.GX16415@tamriel.snowman.net>
<1672926.1606941346@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<X8gpP9GL7R5AsF3E@paquier.xyz>
<8e05fc79-abca-dd3f-4d48-8aaae9525a8f@enterprisedb.com>
<1723856.1607009655@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On 2020-12-03 16:34, Tom Lane wrote:
> As I recall, a whole lot of the pain we have with INTO has to do
> with the semantics we've chosen for INTO in a set-operation nest.
> We think you can write something like
>
> SELECT ... INTO foo FROM ... UNION SELECT ... FROM ...
>
> but we insist on the INTO being in the first component SELECT.
> I'd like to know exactly how much of that messiness is shared
> by SQL Server.
On sqlfiddle.com, this works:
select a into t3 from t1 union select a from t2;
but this gets an error:
select a from t1 union select a into t4 from t2;
SELECT INTO must be the first query in a statement containing a UNION,
INTERSECT or EXCEPT operator.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, michael@paquier.xyz, sfrost@snowman.net
Subject: Re: SELECT INTO deprecation
In-Reply-To: <a71c0215-3ab1-abab-babe-2778b17aa1d7@enterprisedb.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox