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
2014-05-05 17:02 GMT+02:00 Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com:
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
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
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net 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 table has
Merlin Moncure-2 wrote
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 5:48 AM, Marko Tiikkaja lt;
marko@
gt; wrote:
On 5/2/14, 10:10 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Tom Lane lt;
tgl@.pa
gt; wrote:
Meh. Then you could have a query that works fine until you add a
column
to the
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
I've been thinking about how we might implement the multiple column
assignment UPDATE syntax that was introduced in SQL:2003. This feature
allows you to do
UPDATE table SET ..., (column, column, ...) = row-valued expression, ...
where the system arranges to evaluate the row-valued expression
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I've been thinking about how we might implement the multiple column
assignment UPDATE syntax that was introduced in SQL:2003. This feature
allows you to do
UPDATE table SET ..., (column, column, ...) = row-valued expression,
Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I've been thinking about how we might implement the multiple column
assignment UPDATE syntax that was introduced in SQL:2003. This feature
allows you to do
UPDATE table SET ...,
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com 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
Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us 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
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
But I don't think your suggestions of the table name or alias work;
they could conflict with an actual column name.
12 matches
Mail list logo
