| From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Dave Cramer" <dave(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, "Patrick Welche" <prlw1(at)newn(dot)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk>, "Pgsql Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: request for sql3 compliance for the update command |
| Date: | 2003-02-20 04:54:27 |
| Message-ID: | 066a01c2d89c$25d8d3e0$6500a8c0@fhp.internal |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> BTW, looking at the SQL99 standard, I see that you can do
>
> UPDATE table SET ROW = foo WHERE ...
>
> where foo is supposed to yield a row of the same rowtype as table
> --- I didn't dig through the spec in detail, but I imagine foo can
> be a sub-select. I don't care a whole lot for that, though, since it
> would be a real pain in the neck if you're not updating all the columns.
> You'd have to go
>
> UPDATE table SET ROW = (SELECT table.a, table.b, foo.x, ... FROM foo)
How is the Informix syntax any better?
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-02-20 05:24:45 | Re: request for sql3 compliance for the update command |
| Previous Message | Gavin Sherry | 2003-02-20 04:49:16 | Re: request for sql3 compliance for the update command |