Marko Tiikkaja <ma...@joh.to> writes:
> local:marko=#* create table foo(f int);
> CREATE TABLE
> local:marko=#* update foo f set f=1;
> UPDATE 0
> This query would change meaning with your suggestion.
I think it wouldn't; Merlin is proposing that f would be taken as the
field name. A more realistic objection goes like this:
create table foo(f int, g int);
update foo x set x = (1,2); -- works
alter table foo add column x int;
update foo x set x = (1,2,3); -- no longer works
It's not a real good thing if a column addition or renaming can
so fundamentally change the nature of a query.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
