| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11 |
| Date: | 2018-02-04 08:42:01 |
| Message-ID: | CANP8+jKLLxMk1pwC_QZVtSA2s9rG9o7hoNwOooXz_+yOUeiLhw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3 February 2018 at 23:17, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I started looking at SQL Server's MERGE to verify that it also does
>>> not impose any restrictions on subselects in a MERGE UPDATE's
>>> targetlist, just like Oracle. Unsurprisingly, it does not. More
>>> surprisingly, I noticed that it also doesn't seem to impose
>>> restrictions on what can appear in WHEN ... AND quals.
>>
>> You earlier agreed that subselects were not part of the Standard.
>
> You know that I didn't say that, Simon.
I'm happy to quote your words.
"I've acknowledged that the standard has something to
say on this that supports your position, which has real weight."
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2018-02-04 10:15:50 | Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11 |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2018-02-04 08:41:57 | Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11 |