Re: request for sql3 compliance for the update command

From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Dave Cramer" <dave(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
Cc: "Patrick Welche" <prlw1(at)newn(dot)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk>, "Pgsql Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: request for sql3 compliance for the update command
Date: 2003-02-20 02:09:45
Message-ID: 050601c2d885$2440c630$6500a8c0@fhp.internal
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> While I don't see the syntax of:
>
> update table set (col...) = ( val...)
>
> as valuable compared to separate col=val assignments, I do see a value
> in allowing subqueries in such assignments:
>
> update table set (col...) = ( select val ..)
>
> Without it, you have to do separate subquery statements, and if they are
> complex, that is a waste. I assume that was the motivation for the
> feature.

The number of times I've needed this feature... :)

Chris

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Clift 2003-02-20 02:17:32 Re: Performance Baseline Script
Previous Message Justin Clift 2003-02-20 02:08:56 Re: request for sql3 compliance for the update command