On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > Marko Tiikkaja <[email protected]> writes: >> local:marko=#* create table foo(f int); >> CREATE TABLE >> local:marko=#* update foo f set f=1; >> UPDATE 0 > >> This query would change meaning with your suggestion. > > I think it wouldn't; Merlin is proposing that f would be taken as the > field name. A more realistic objection goes like this: > > create table foo(f int, g int); > update foo x set x = (1,2); -- works > alter table foo add column x int; > update foo x set x = (1,2,3); -- no longer works > > It's not a real good thing if a column addition or renaming can > so fundamentally change the nature of a query.
That's exactly how SELECT works. I also dispute that the user should be surprised in such cases. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
