Re: Allow an alias for the target table in UPDATE/DELETE

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, 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 18:51:26
Message-ID: 43D3D42E.30209@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

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
>context.
>
>

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?

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Conway 2006-01-22 18:59:18 Re: Allow an alias for the target table in UPDATE/DELETE
Previous Message Neil Conway 2006-01-22 18:50:25 Re: TupleDesc refcounting