From: | Nick Apperson <apperson(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Chaining inserts ... This would be cool |
Date: | 2012-04-23 20:49:18 |
Message-ID: | CAMnfHvuLTA55vM7V3hBLeTkQk5uR0tkZ0903=BxpSHxpQCqyqQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
There are obviously workarounds for this, but I'm wondering why the
following query shouldn't work. It seems like it should. With MVCC already
present on the back-end, I can't see any reason other than additional
parsing routines that this couldn't work:
INSERT INTO old_login_id_to_new_account_id(new_account_id, old_login_id)
INSERT INTO accounts(id, username, password_hash, email) SELECT DEFAULT,
username, password_hash, email FROM logins_old RETURNING id, logins_old.id;
Anyway, I'm sure there are more important features for Postgres (like
upserts, unique indexes on GIN, Gist and hash, fixed arrays, compact
storage of enum arrays as bitfields, etc.) I just thought it was an
interesting idea.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thom Brown | 2012-04-23 21:19:10 | Re: Chaining inserts ... This would be cool |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-04-23 16:09:43 | Re: [HACKERS] Namespace of array of user defined types is confused by the parser in insert? |