> Just my 0.02 kronor . . .
>
> On Sep 27, Bruce Momjian noted:
>
> > > * Update table SET table.value = 3 fails
> > >
> > > AFAICS, the SQL92 syntax allows only a bare <column name> as the
> > > target of a SET clause. Not sure it's worth expending any effort
> > > on this one...
> >
> > Marked now as:
> >
> > * Update table SET table.value = 3 fails(SQL standard says this is OK)
>
> In my opinion this should definitely _not_ be allowed. Let's be glad the
> UPDATE command is so conceptually simple (cf. SELECT). The next thing they
> want is ALTER TABLE foo RENAME foo.colum [ TO bar.something ??? -- moving
> columns between tables, why not :) ] and then CREATE TABLE foo (foo.a int,
> ...); and it won't stop :)
OK, let's leave it in so people know it is not implemented.
> > Some people want the SQL session to start inside a transaction, and you
> > have to explicity use COMMIT, at which point you are in a new
> > transaction that lasts until the next commit. Ingres SQL does this, and
> > it is a pain, I think.
>
> I have been wondering about this, too. Oracle does this as well. This is
> also how they taught me SQL in university, so it is probably not out of
> the blue. What do the standards say?
>
> Then again, while I think that client programmers won't die if they type
> an extra BEGIN here or there, this might be useful as a psql feature. Too
> many times I've seen people type DELETE FROM <table>; by accident.
No one has really been passionate about it either way.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026