Silly ESQL syntax quirk

[Roy Hann]

I just noticed that ESQLC insists that the (normally optional) keyword
TABLE is mandatory in COPY TABLE foo ( ...) FROM ....

i.e: E_EQ0070 Missing word 'TABLE' in COPY statement.

Has it always been like that? My mind is going.

(Version II 10.1.0 (int.w32/121))

--
Roy

UK Ingres User Association Conference 2012 will be on Tuesday June 19 2012.
The latest information is available from www.uk-iua.org.uk.

[Roy Hann]

Roy Hann wrote:

> I just noticed that ESQLC insists that the (normally optional) keyword
> TABLE is mandatory in COPY TABLE foo ( ...) FROM ....
>
> i.e: E_EQ0070 Missing word 'TABLE' in COPY statement.
>
> Has it always been like that? My mind is going.
>
> (Version II 10.1.0 (int.w32/121))

Following up on my own post, I've just noticed it objects to
another perfectly valid statement, e.g.:

exec sql insert into foo
select 1, 'Dave'
union
select 2, 'Zebedee'
union
select 3, 'Yolanda';

E_EQ0244 Syntax error on 'union'.

Is esqlc usable in the community release of 10.1?

[Karl Schendel]

On Jan 25, 2012, at 11:51 AM, Roy Hann wrote:

> I just noticed that ESQLC insists that the (normally optional) keyword
> TABLE is mandatory in COPY TABLE foo ( ...) FROM ....
>
> i.e: E_EQ0070 Missing word 'TABLE' in COPY statement.
>
> Has it always been like that?

Yes, it's always been like that. It's silly indeed. I don't know if
it would be hard or easy to fix the ESQL grammar to make the
TABLE keyword optional.

Karl