Обсуждение: COPY syntax
According to the syntax diagram in the documenation, I can write COPY table TO STDOUT WITH BINARY OIDS; Shouldn't the "binary", being an adjective, be attached to something? -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > According to the syntax diagram in the documenation, I can write > > COPY table TO STDOUT WITH BINARY OIDS; > > Shouldn't the "binary", being an adjective, be attached to something? Uh, it is attached to WITH? Seriously, yea, it doesn't read well, but it follows the WITH format of parameters to a command. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania19073
Bruce Momjian writes: > > According to the syntax diagram in the documenation, I can write > > > > COPY table TO STDOUT WITH BINARY OIDS; > > > > Shouldn't the "binary", being an adjective, be attached to something? > > Uh, it is attached to WITH? Attached to a noun phrase, like "mode" or "output". Note that all the other things the typically follow WITH in any command are nouns. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > > According to the syntax diagram in the documenation, I can write > > > > > > COPY table TO STDOUT WITH BINARY OIDS; > > > > > > Shouldn't the "binary", being an adjective, be attached to something? > > > > Uh, it is attached to WITH? > > Attached to a noun phrase, like "mode" or "output". Note that all the > other things the typically follow WITH in any command are nouns. Should we add an optional MODE after BINARY? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania19073
Bruce Momjian writes:> Peter Eisentraut wrote:> > Bruce Momjian writes:> > > > COPY table TO STDOUT WITH BINARY OIDS;> >> > Shouldn't the "binary", being an adjective, be attached to something?> > > Uh, it is attached to WITH?> > Attached toa noun phrase, like "mode" or "output". Note that all the> > other things the typically follow WITH in any command arenouns.> Should we add an optional MODE after BINARY? Are you serious? You'd like to mess up the COPY syntax even further for a purely grammatical reason! A good few months ago I put formward an idea to change (well migrate really) to "COPY TABLE" rather than "COPY" - this would allow a well designed and thoughtout syntax for the new version while retaining old compatibility. egards, Lee Kindness.
Lee Kindness wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > > > COPY table TO STDOUT WITH BINARY OIDS; > > > > > Shouldn't the "binary", being an adjective, be attached to something? > > > > Uh, it is attached to WITH? > > > Attached to a noun phrase, like "mode" or "output". Note that all the > > > other things the typically follow WITH in any command are nouns. > > Should we add an optional MODE after BINARY? > > Are you serious? You'd like to mess up the COPY syntax even further > for a purely grammatical reason! > > A good few months ago I put formward an idea to change (well migrate > really) to "COPY TABLE" rather than "COPY" - this would allow a well > designed and thoughtout syntax for the new version while retaining old > compatibility. I don't like the added MODE either, but Peter doesn't seem to like BINARY alone, though it seems fine to me. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania19073
Lee Kindness writes: > Are you serious? You'd like to mess up the COPY syntax even further > for a purely grammatical reason! We already "messed up" the COPY syntax in this release to achieve better user friendliness. I do not think it's unreasonable to review this goal from a variety of angles. > A good few months ago I put formward an idea to change (well migrate > really) to "COPY TABLE" rather than "COPY" - this would allow a well > designed and thoughtout syntax for the new version while retaining old > compatibility. Well, I am the first to agree that the current syntax is not well designed, but I must admit that I don't quite see what benefit simply adding "TABLE" would have. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Well, I am the first to agree that the current syntax is not well
> designed, but I must admit that I don't quite see what benefit simply
> adding "TABLE" would have.
I think the idea was that "COPY TABLE ..." could have a new clean syntax
without the warts of the current syntax. TABLE wouldn't be a noise word,
but a trigger for a different syntax for what follows.
However, COPY's feature set is inherently pretty wart-y. Even if we had
a green field to design syntax in, where exactly is the improvement
going to come, assuming that functionality has to stay the same?
regards, tom lane