Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> >> In general I'm suspicious of rejecting cases we used to accept for
> >> no good reason other than that it's not in the spec. There is a LOT
> >> of Postgres behavior that's not in the spec.
>
> > TODO has:
> > o Disallow missing columns in INSERT ... VALUES, per ANSI
>
> Where's the discussion that's the basis of that entry? I don't recall
> any existing consensus on this (though maybe I forgot).
I assume someone (Peter?) looked it up and reported that our current
behavior was incorrect and not compliant. I didn't do the research in
whether it was compliant.
> There are a fair number of things in the TODO list that you put there
> because you liked 'em, but that doesn't mean everyone else agrees.
> I certainly will not accept "once it's on the TODO list it cannot be
> questioned"...
I put it there because I didn't think there was any question. If I was
wrong, I can add a question mark to it.
Do you want to argue we should continue allowing it? Also, what about
missing trailling columns in COPY?
If we continue allowing missing INSERT columns, I am not sure we can
claim it is an extension or whether the standard requires the query to
fail.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026