Tom Lane wrote:
>The effect of this, as Andrew says, is that in this particular context
>you can't write SET as an alias unless you write AS first. This is
>probably not going to surprise anyone in the UPDATE case, since the
>ambiguity inherent in writing
> UPDATE foo set SET ...
>is pretty obvious. However it might surprise someone in the DELETE
You probably avoid that if you have a separate rule for the DELETE case.
That raises this question: how far do we want to go in unfactoring the
grammar to handle such cases?
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Neil Conway||Date: 2006-01-22 18:59:18|
|Subject: Re: Allow an alias for the target table in UPDATE/DELETE|
|Previous:||From: Neil Conway||Date: 2006-01-22 18:50:25|
|Subject: Re: TupleDesc refcounting|