On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Marko Tiikkaja <ma...@joh.to> wrote: >>> I don't know about Tom, but I didn't like that: >>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5364c982.7060...@joh.to > >> Hm, I didn't understand your objection: > >> <quoting> >> So e.g.: >> UPDATE foo f SET f = ..; > >> would resolve to the table, despite there being a column called "f"? >> That would break backwards compatibility. >> </quoting> > >> That's not correct: it should work exactly as 'select' does; given a >> conflict resolve the field name, so no backwards compatibility issue. > > The point is that it's fairly messy (and bug-prone) to have a syntax > where we have to make an arbitrary choice between two reasonable > interpretations. > > If you look back at the whole thread Marko's above-cited message is in, > we'd considered a bunch of different possible syntaxes for this, and > none of them had much support. The "(*)" idea actually is starting to > look pretty good to me.
Hm, I'll take it then. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
