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
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
In response to
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-06-07 05:20:03|
|Subject: Re: pgsql-server: Minor catalog cleanups for composite-type |
|Previous:||From: Christopher Kings-Lynne||Date: 2004-06-07 04:49:34|
|Subject: Re: pgsql-server: Minor catalog cleanups for composite-type|