Where exactly would you propose to stick it in the syntax?
Good question, I don't know.
Can you do
it without introducing more fully-reserved words than we have already?
No idea.
Is there any spec or other-product precedent for it? (Offhand I can't
even find CREATE TABLE AS in SQL99...)
Weeell.
On Mon, 2004-04-19 at 02:16, Tom Lane wrote:
> (Offhand I can't even find CREATE TABLE AS in SQL99...)
This is semi-OT, but CREATE TABLE AS is (new) in SQL2003. At few glance,
the spec's notion of the command is about the same as ours, except for a
few minor syntactic differences (e.g. the [ WITH
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there any reason why the 'ON COMMIT' behaviour feature is not
> available if you use CREATE TABLE AS ...?
Where exactly would you propose to stick it in the syntax? Can you do
it without introducing more fully-reserved words than we have a
Is there any reason why the 'ON COMMIT' behaviour feature is not
available if you use CREATE TABLE AS ...?
Chris
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
