Re: Why can't you define a table alias on an update?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
Искать
От
Bruce Momjian
Тема
Re: Why can't you define a table alias on an update?
Дата
Msg-id
200306240154.h5O1sfY07290@candle.pha.pa.us
Ответ на
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Why can't you define a table alias on an update? nolan@celery.tssi.com
Re: Why can't you define a table alias on an update? Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Why can't you define a table alias on an update? "Jim C. Nasby" <jim@nasby.net>
Re: Why can't you define a table alias on an update? Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Why can't you define a table alias on an update? Csaba Nagy <nagy@ecircle-ag.com>
Re: Why can't you define a table alias on an update? Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: table alias on update, another update question nolan@celery.tssi.com
Re: table alias on update, another update question Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>
Re: table alias on update, another update question nolan@celery.tssi.com
Re: Why can't you define a table alias on an update? nolan@celery.tssi.com
Re: Why can't you define a table alias on an update? Avi Schwartz <avi@CFFtechnologies.com>
Re: Why can't you define a table alias on an update? Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Why can't you define a table alias on an update? "Jim C. Nasby" <jim@nasby.net>

TODO updated:

	* Allow UPDATE, DELETE to handle table aliases for self-joins [delete]


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Csaba Nagy wrote:
> Couldn't resist to not comment on this one:
> 
> I find this feature would be extremely useful considering the fact that
> postgres supports the FROM clause in updates. This is already a useful
> extension to the SQL standard, so why not make it better ?
> I vote +1 to implement this !
> 
> Cheers,
> Csaba.
> 
> On Mon, 2003-06-16 at 15:42, Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Jim C. Nasby"  writes:
> > > On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 06:36:57PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> It seems like a reasonable extension, but looking at the grammar just
> > >> now, I think that we'd have to turn SET from an unreserved keyword to a
> > >> reserved word to make this work.  Not sure how many peoples' databases
> > >> that would break ... but we'd probably get a few complaints ...
> >  
> > > Would it be reasonable to have a setting that enabled/disabled this?
> > 
> > No, unless you want to have two complete bison parsers in there.  AFAIK
> > there's no good way to alter the reserved-word status of a keyword on
> > the fly.  So either we do it, or not.
> > 
> > I'm not necessarily opposed to doing it, I just wanted to raise a flag
> > and see if anyone reading this thread would complain.
> > 
> > 			regards, tom lane
> > 
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
> > 
> >                http://archives.postgresql.org
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
>       joining column's datatypes do not match
> 

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления
От: Dan Langille
Дата:
От: nolan@celery.tssi.com
Дата:
FAQ