Re: Allow an alias for the target table in UPDATE/DELETE
От | Neil Conway |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Allow an alias for the target table in UPDATE/DELETE |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1137910919.8798.25.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Allow an alias for the target table in UPDATE/DELETE (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Allow an alias for the target table in UPDATE/DELETE
|
Список | pgsql-patches |
On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 00:55 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > This is wrong: > > +relation_expr_opt_alias: relation_expr > + { > + $$ = $1; > + } > + | relation_expr opt_as IDENT > + { > + > > Should be ColId, not IDENT, per existing alias_clause production. That causes a reduce/reduce conflict: state 557 934 relation_expr_opt_alias: relation_expr . 935 | relation_expr . opt_as ColId AS shift, and go to state 875 $end reduce using rule 934 (relation_expr_opt_alias) SET reduce using rule 754 (opt_as) SET [reduce using rule 934 (relation_expr_opt_alias)] USING reduce using rule 934 (relation_expr_opt_alias) WHERE reduce using rule 934 (relation_expr_opt_alias) ')' reduce using rule 934 (relation_expr_opt_alias) ';' reduce using rule 934 (relation_expr_opt_alias) $default reduce using rule 754 (opt_as) opt_as go to state 876 > Also, while I'm all for getting to 100 regression tests, this is a > mighty lame 100th entry. Why's that? We needed regression tests for the changes to DELETE (IMHO), and I didn't see an existing test file where it would have made much sense to add them. I don't think the barrier for adding a new regression test should be particularly high, provided the test covers a clear set of functionality (such as the "DELETE" statement). -Neil
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: