Well, If I'm reading the spec correctly,
INSERT INTO references a query expression
which doesn't include ORDER BY as an option, so this
is even less SQL since we're actually not just changing
it to allow our non-standard bit, but we're changing
a piece that is explicitly not allowed in the spec.
That being said, I also think it's probably a useful extension
given the LIMIT clause.
On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Chris Bitmead wrote:
>
> He does ask a legitimate question though. If you are going to have a
> LIMIT feature (which of course is not pure SQL), there seems no reason
> you shouldn't be able to insert the result into a table.
