| From: | Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk> | 
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: Can I use a query with UPDATE on its SET? | 
| Date: | 2009-02-26 13:41:20 | 
| Message-ID: | 20090226134120.GA32672@frubble.xen.chris-lamb.co.uk | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general | 
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 02:15:49AM -0800, Eus wrote:
> Is it possible to eliminate the use of `fieldname' completely?
> So, I just need to type `UPDATE table SET (SELECT ...) WHERE primary_key'.
> 
> I think this should be possible because if the subquery in the SET
> clause returns the same number of columns with the same types of those
> of the destination table, PostgreSQL should be able to just update the
> values at once.
Not at the moment; there was a discussion about it a while ago[1] on the
-hackers list.  It all petered out after I couldn't think how to explain
my position and have since forgotten about it.  I'll try and think what
I was trying to say and respond again.
-- 
  Sam  http://samason.me.uk/
[1] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-01/msg02336.php
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2009-02-26 14:11:56 | Re: Restore DB | 
| Previous Message | Serge Fonville | 2009-02-26 13:17:22 | Re: postgresql with storage |