From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Allow an alias for the target table in UPDATE/DELETE |
Date: | 2006-01-22 19:20:31 |
Message-ID: | 19830.1137957631@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> Did you actually test this?
No, I was just looking at the y.output file to see what would happen.
> neilc=# update t1 set set a = 500 where set.a > 1000;
> UPDATE 0
> (Using essentially the patch you posted.)
[ scratches head... ] That shouldn't have worked. I'll have to look
again.
> Well, if necessary we can just use an alternate production for the
> DELETE case, as there is no SET ambiguity to worry about.
Yeah, I thought of that too and rejected it as being too much trouble
for too small a case. I'm really considerably more worried about the
question of whether attaching a precedence to SET might cause trouble
later. But it's only a hypothetical problem at this point.
> So I'm inclined to favor #2.
OK, motion carries. I'll check what's happening in the case above
and commit if there's not something wrong.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexey Slynko | 2006-01-22 19:57:27 | TODO item: locale per database patch (new iteration) |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2006-01-22 18:59:18 | Re: Allow an alias for the target table in UPDATE/DELETE |