Between 9.6.5 and 10, the handling of parenthesized single-column UPDATE
statements changed. In 9.6.5, they were treated identically to
unparenthesized single-column UPDATES. In 10, they are treated as
multiple-column updates. This results in this being valid in Postgres
9.6.5, but an error in
"David G. Johnston" writes:
> Definitely moderates my opinion in my concurrent email...though
> postponement is not strictly bad given the seeming frequency of the
> existing problematic syntax in the wild already.
Yeah, I'd hoped to get some capability extensions
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> According to the spec, the elements of a parenthesized
> SET list should be assigned from the fields of a composite RHS. If
> there's just one element of the SET list, the RHS should be a single-field
> composite value, and
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Rob McColl wrote:
>
>> I believe that this is not an intended change or behavior, but is instead
>> an unintentional side effect of 906bfcad7ba7cb3863fe0e2a7810be8e3cd84fbd
>> Improve handling of "UPDATE ... SET (column_list) =
Rob McColl writes:
> Attaching patch... :-/
The reason why hacking your way to a backwards-compatible solution is
a bad idea is that it breaks the SQL standard compliance we're trying to
achieve here. According to the spec, the elements of a parenthesized
SET list should be
Attaching patch... :-/
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Rob McColl wrote:
> Between 9.6.5 and 10, the handling of parenthesized single-column UPDATE
> statements changed. In 9.6.5, they were treated identically to
> unparenthesized single-column UPDATES. In 10, they are