Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Susanne Ebrecht wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> Is it too hard to rip it back out once the full row support
>>>>>>>> arrives? That seems speculation at best anyway.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's what I was thinking. Glad someone else replied. ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you're looking for votes, +1. I'll gladly take a subset of the
>>>>>> SQL standard UPDATE table SET (...) = (...) over having nothing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> +1 here, too. :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I am working now to get this into 8.2.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I am glad to read this. But what does it mean to me? Shall I change the
>> patch someway?
>>
>
> I have merged your patch into current CVS and applied it; attached.
> There was quite a bit of code drift. One drift area was the new
> RETURNING clause; that was easy to fix. A more complex case is the
> code no longer has values as ResTargets --- it is a simple a_expr list,
> so I changed the critical assignment in gram.y from:
>
> res_col->val = (Node *)copyObject(res_val->val);
>
> to:
>
> res_col->val = (Node *)copyObject(res_val);
>
> Hope that is OK. Without that fix, it crashed. I also merged your SGML
> syntax and grammer addition into the exiting UPDATE main entry.
>
Of course it is ok. Many thanks.
Susanne