Re: [HACKERS] extension for sql update

Jim Nasby wrote:
> On Jul 27, 2006, at 7:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Susanne Ebrecht <miracee(at)miracee(dot)de> writes:
> >> ... We could provide the mixed update syntax and leave the
> >> typed row value expression for the next release. Do you agree?
> >
> > I don't really see the point --- the patch won't provide any new
> > functionality in anything like its current form, because you can
> > always just write the separate expressions in the simple one to
> > one way. If we do offer the row-on-the-left syntax then people
> > will try to put sub-selects on the right, and won't get anything
> > beyond an unhelpful "syntax error" message. So my vote would be
> > to leave it alone until we have a more complete implementation.
>
> While the patch doesn't provide any new functionality, I would still
> welcome it simply because I find it a lot easier and cleaner to group
> fields together when updating multiple fields at once.
>
> Even if we would have to rip this patch back out in order to fully
> support the spec, we've got a (mostly) working patch right now, and
> it sounds like it would take minimal effort to finish it.
>
> In any case, it sounds like there should be a TODO item out of this.

We already had it on the TODO list, but I didn't realize about the
subselect issue. I added a sentence to clarify that:

o Allow UPDATE tab SET ROW (col, ...) = (...) for updating multiple
columns

new--> A subselect can also be used as the value source.

--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +