Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Did you actually test this?
No, I was just looking at the y.output file to see what would happen. > neilc=# update t1 set set a = 500 where set.a > 1000; > UPDATE 0 > (Using essentially the patch you posted.) [ scratches head... ] That shouldn't have worked. I'll have to look again. > Well, if necessary we can just use an alternate production for the > DELETE case, as there is no SET ambiguity to worry about. Yeah, I thought of that too and rejected it as being too much trouble for too small a case. I'm really considerably more worried about the question of whether attaching a precedence to SET might cause trouble later. But it's only a hypothetical problem at this point. > So I'm inclined to favor #2. OK, motion carries. I'll check what's happening in the case above and commit if there's not something wrong. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster