From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
Cc: | Dave Cramer <dave(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: request for sql3 compliance for the update command |
Date: | 2003-02-20 14:31:21 |
Message-ID: | 21933.1045751481@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> writes:
> Are you against it just on grounds of cleanliness and ANSI compliance,
> or do you see more serious problems in letting it in ?
At this point it seems there are two different things being tossed
about. I originally understood Dave to be asking for parens to be
allowed around individual target column names, which seems a useless
frammish to me. What Bruce has pointed out is that a syntax that lets
you assign multiple columns from a single rowsource would be an actual
improvement in functionality, or at least in convenience and efficiency.
(It would also be a substantial bit of work, which is why I think this
isn't what Dave was offering a quick patch to do...) What I'd like to
know right now is which interpretation Informix actually implements.
I don't like adding nonstandard syntaxes that add no functionality ---
but if Informix has done what Bruce is talking about, that's a different
matter altogether.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-02-20 14:58:05 | Re: request for sql3 compliance for the update command |
Previous Message | Justin Clift | 2003-02-20 12:42:01 | Re: [GENERAL] Open Source Development Lab resources |