On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 5:48 AM, Marko Tiikkaja <ma...@joh.to> wrote: > On 5/2/14, 10:10 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> >>> Meh. Then you could have a query that works fine until you add a column >>> to the table, and it stops working. If nobody ever used column names >>> identical to table names it'd be all right, but unfortunately people >>> seem to do that a lot... >> >> >> That's already the case with select statements > > I don't think that's true if you table-qualify your column references and > don't use SELECT *. > > >> and, if a user were >> concerned about that, always have the option of aliasing the table as >> nearly 100% of professional developers do: >> >> SELECT f FROM foo f; >> etc. > > > So e.g.: > > UPDATE foo f SET f = ..; > > would resolve to the table, despite there being a column called "f"? That > would break backwards compatibility. > > How about: > > UPDATE foo SET ROW(foo) = (1,2,3); > > ISTM that this could be parsed unambiguously, though it's perhaps a bit > ugly.
Hm, that's a bit too ugly: row(foo) in this case means 'do special behavior X' whereas in all other cases it means make an anonymous rowtype with one attribute of type 'foo'. How about: UPDATE foo SET (foo).* = (1,2,3); merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
