Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > I think the fact that single-target INTO lists and multiple-target > INTO lists are handled completely differently is extremely poor > language design. It would have been far better, as you suggested > downthread, to have added some syntax up front to let people select > the behavior that they want, but I think there's little hope of > changing this now without creating even more pain.
How so? The proposal I gave is fully backwards-compatible. It's likely not the way we'd do it in a green field, but we don't have a green field. > I have a really hard time, however, imagining that anyone writes > SELECT a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k INTO x, y, z and wants some of > a-k to go into x, some more to go into y, and some more to go into z > (and heaven help you if you drop a column from x or y -- now the whole > semantics of the query change, yikes). What's reasonable is to write > SELECT a, b, c INTO x, y, z and have those correspond 1:1. That's certainly a case that we ought to support somehow. The problem is staying reasonably consistent with the two-decades-old precedent of the existing behavior for one target variable. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers