Subject: Re: INSERT INTO ... SELECT (PostgreSQL vs. MySQL)
From: Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca>
To: Ian Barwick <barwick@gmx.net>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <200304101627.43804.barwick@gmx.net>
References: <200304101627.43804.barwick@gmx.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	boundary="=-EHEKy9moqLoke1+M//4F"
Organization: 
Message-Id: <1049987441.55410.13.camel@jester>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: 10 Apr 2003 11:10:42 -0400

--=-EHEKy9moqLoke1+M//4F
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> Can anyone shed light on whether the above statement (especially
> the bit about "standard SQL") is correct? I can't get my head
> around MySQL being more standards compliant than Postgres here...

MySQL would have a tough time determining whether the tuple at the end
of the table was a result of the current insert or not (possibly making
a loop). PostgreSQL and most other major databases are perfectly capable
of such acts, so they have extended the spec for obvious reasons -- it's
a silly limitation to put in place for capable databases.

--=20
Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca>

PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc

--=-EHEKy9moqLoke1+M//4F
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQA+lYlx6DETLow6vwwRAhRwAJ0eqp66fu3VbT9vaGsVKMA1TyXeigCeJylP
+WT7uwfyrtwZ6U5K8gnazzs=
=Ncfc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-EHEKy9moqLoke1+M//4F--