Merlin Moncure-2 wrote
> On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 5:48 AM, Marko Tiikkaja <
> marko@
> > wrote:
>> On 5/2/14, 10:10 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Tom Lane <
> tgl@.pa
> > wrote:
Meh. Then you could have a query that works fine until you add a
co
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 05/05/2014 11:20 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> How about:
>> UPDATE foo SET (foo).* = (1,2,3);
>>
>>
>> It is looking little bit strange
>>
>> I like previous proposal UPDATE foo SET foo = (1,2,3);
>>
>
> What if the t
On 05/05/2014 11:20 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
How about:
UPDATE foo SET (foo).* = (1,2,3);
It is looking little bit strange
I like previous proposal UPDATE foo SET foo = (1,2,3);
What if the table has a field called foo? Won't it then be ambiguous?
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via p
2014-05-05 17:02 GMT+02:00 Merlin Moncure :
> On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 5:48 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> > On 5/2/14, 10:10 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Meh. Then you could have a query that works fine until you add a
> column
> >>
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 5:48 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> On 5/2/14, 10:10 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Tom Lane 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 co
On 5/2/14, 10:10 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Tom Lane 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
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Merlin Moncure writes:
>> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> But I don't think your suggestions of the table name or alias work;
>>> they could conflict with an actual column name.
>
>> Presumably it'd follow similar rules to SEL
Merlin Moncure writes:
> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> But I don't think your suggestions of the table name or alias work;
>> they could conflict with an actual column name.
> Presumably it'd follow similar rules to SELECT -- resolve the column
> name in the face of ambiguit
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Merlin Moncure writes:
>> 2) I often wish that you could reference the table (or it's alias)
>> directly as the field list.
>
>> UPDATE foo f set f = (...)::foo;
>> or even
>> UPDATE foo SET foo = foo;
>
> Hm. You could get there with this syntax
Merlin Moncure writes:
> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I've been thinking about how we might implement the > assignment> UPDATE syntax that was introduced in SQL:2003. This feature
>> allows you to do
>> UPDATE table SET ..., (column, column, ...) = , ...
> Couple quick que
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I've been thinking about how we might implement the assignment> UPDATE syntax that was introduced in SQL:2003. This feature
> allows you to do
>
> UPDATE table SET ..., (column, column, ...) = , ...
>
> where the system arranges to evaluate the
I've been thinking about how we might implement the UPDATE syntax that was introduced in SQL:2003. This feature
allows you to do
UPDATE table SET ..., (column, column, ...) = , ...
where the system arranges to evaluate the just
once per row and then assign its fields into the specified target
12 matches
Mail list logo
