From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgsql-server: Some preliminary documentation for composite-type stuff. |
Date: | 2004-06-07 04:52:10 |
Message-ID: | 24299.1086583930@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> writes:
> Nice work. This is a cool unexpected step forward in functionality.
As recently as Thursday I didn't think this would get done for 7.5,
but I wanted to nibble off a few rough edges, and after a while there
weren't any left.
Or almost ... I just noticed that there's no convenient way to assign to
a subfield in UPDATE. You can hack around it with something like
UPDATE mytab SET myfield = ROW(myfield.a, newval, myfield.c)
but my goodness that's painful. AFAICS the SQL99 spec gives license
to write
UPDATE mytab SET myfield.b = newval
and I think I will look into making that happen tomorrow. We already
have a solution in place for assigning to an array element, and this
doesn't seem much different.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-06-07 05:20:03 | Re: pgsql-server: Minor catalog cleanups for composite-type |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-06-07 04:49:34 | Re: pgsql-server: Minor catalog cleanups for composite-type |