Is there any reason why the 'ON COMMIT' behaviour feature is not 
available if you use CREATE TABLE AS ...?

Chris


Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:19:30 +0800
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
ON COMMIT DROP
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> 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 already?
Is there any spec or other-product precedent for it?  (Offhand I can't
even find CREATE TABLE AS in SQL99...)

			regards, tom lane

Mon, 19 Apr 2004 02:16:58 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: ON COMMIT DROP 
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 [ NO ] DATA ] clause
the spec allows for; I'm planning to implement that soon).

-Neil



Mon, 19 Apr 2004 02:33:16 -0400
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
Re: ON COMMIT DROP
> 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.  I was just minorly annoyed at having to create table with on 
commit behaviour, then insert into select from instead of being able to 
do it in one step...

Chris


Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:44:07 +0800
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
Re: ON COMMIT DROP