Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Did you actually test this?

No, I was just looking at the y.output file to see what would happen.

> neilc=# update t1 set set a = 500 where set.a > 1000;
> (Using essentially the patch you posted.)

[ scratches head... ]  That shouldn't have worked.  I'll have to look

> Well, if necessary we can just use an alternate production for the
> DELETE case, as there is no SET ambiguity to worry about.

Yeah, I thought of that too and rejected it as being too much trouble
for too small a case.  I'm really considerably more worried about the
question of whether attaching a precedence to SET might cause trouble
later.  But it's only a hypothetical problem at this point.

> So I'm inclined to favor #2.

OK, motion carries.  I'll check what's happening in the case above
and commit if there's not something wrong.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to