Susanne Ebrecht wrote:
> > That's what I was thinking. Glad someone else replied. ;-)
> >
> If you're looking for votes, +1. I'll gladly take a subset of the
> SQL standard UPDATE table SET (...) = (...) over having nothing.
>
> >>> +1 here, too. :)
> >>
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Robert Treat wrote:
On Saturday 12 August 2006 16:16, David Fetter wrote:
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 05:11:03PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 10:59:45AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Bruce Momjian
Robert Treat wrote:
> On Saturday 12 August 2006 16:16, David Fetter wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 05:11:03PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 10:59:45AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > > > Are we sure w
On Saturday 12 August 2006 16:16, David Fetter wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 05:11:03PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 10:59:45AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > > Are we sure we don't want the patch for a non
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 05:11:03PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 10:59:45AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > Are we sure we don't want the patch for a non-subquery version of SET
> > > > ROW for 8.2?
> > > >
> > > >
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 10:59:45AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Are we sure we don't want the patch for a non-subquery version of SET
> > > ROW for 8.2?
> > >
> > > o Allow UPDATE tab SET ROW (col, ...) = (...) for updating
> > > multi
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Are we sure we don't want the patch for a non-subquery version of SET
> > ROW for 8.2?
> >
> > o Allow UPDATE tab SET ROW (col, ...) = (...) for updating
> > multiple columns
>
> It seems to be moderately useful as a notational convenience
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Are we sure we don't want the patch for a non-subquery version of SET
> ROW for 8.2?
>
> o Allow UPDATE tab SET ROW (col, ...) = (...) for updating
> multiple columns
It seems to be moderately useful as a notational convenience for now.
Is it too hard to rip it back
Are we sure we don't want the patch for a non-subquery version of SET
ROW for 8.2?
o Allow UPDATE tab SET ROW (col, ...) = (...) for updating multiple
columns
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am Mittwoch, 26. Juli 2006 22:58 schrieb Tom Lane:
>> The reason people want this syntax is that they expect to be
>> able to write, say,
>> UPDATE mytab SET (foo, bar, baz) =
>> (SELECT alpha, beta, gamma FROM othertab WHERE key = mytab.key);
> I don
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 08:38:30PM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-07-30 at 20:20 -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> > On Thursday 27 July 2006 09:28, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > >> UPDATE mytab SET
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 17:26 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 26. Juli 2006 22:58 schrieb Tom Lane:
> > The reason people want this syntax is that they expect to be
> > able to write, say,
> >
> > UPDATE mytab SET (foo, bar, baz) =
> > (SELECT alpha, beta, gamma FROM otherta
Am Mittwoch, 26. Juli 2006 22:58 schrieb Tom Lane:
> The reason people want this syntax is that they expect to be
> able to write, say,
>
> UPDATE mytab SET (foo, bar, baz) =
> (SELECT alpha, beta, gamma FROM othertab WHERE key = mytab.key);
I don't find any derivation in the stand
On Sun, 2006-07-30 at 20:20 -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Thursday 27 July 2006 09:28, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > >> UPDATE mytab SET (foo, bar, baz) =
> > > >> (SELECT alpha, beta, gamma FROM othertab WHE
On Thursday 27 July 2006 09:28, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> UPDATE mytab SET (foo, bar, baz) =
> > >> (SELECT alpha, beta, gamma FROM othertab WHERE key = mytab.key);
> > >
> > > That UPDATE example is interesting
Am Donnerstag, den 27.07.2006, 08:30 -0400 schrieb Tom Lane:
> Susanne Ebrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ... We could provide the mixed update syntax and leave the
> > typed row value expression for the next release. Do you agree?
>
> I don't really see the point --- the patch won't provide
Jim Nasby wrote:
> On Jul 27, 2006, at 7:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Susanne Ebrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> ... We could provide the mixed update syntax and leave the
> >> typed row value expression for the next release. Do you agree?
> >
> > I don't really see the point --- the patch won'
Tom Lane wrote:
Susanne Ebrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
... We could provide the mixed update syntax and leave the
typed row value expression for the next release. Do you agree?
I don't really see the point --- the patch won't provide any new
functionality in anything like its current form
On Jul 27, 2006, at 7:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Susanne Ebrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
... We could provide the mixed update syntax and leave the
typed row value expression for the next release. Do you agree?
I don't really see the point --- the patch won't provide any new
functionality in a
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> UPDATE mytab SET (foo, bar, baz) =
> >> (SELECT alpha, beta, gamma FROM othertab WHERE key = mytab.key);
>
> > That UPDATE example is interesting because I remember when using
> > Informix that I had to do a separ
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> UPDATE mytab SET (foo, bar, baz) =
>> (SELECT alpha, beta, gamma FROM othertab WHERE key = mytab.key);
> That UPDATE example is interesting because I remember when using
> Informix that I had to do a separate SELECT statement for each
Tom Lane wrote:
> much anything that can generate a row. The patch as you have it
> provides nothing more than syntactic sugar for something people can do
> anyway. The reason people want this syntax is that they expect to be
> able to write, say,
>
> UPDATE mytab SET (foo, bar, baz) =
>
Susanne Ebrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... We could provide the mixed update syntax and leave the
> typed row value expression for the next release. Do you agree?
I don't really see the point --- the patch won't provide any new
functionality in anything like its current form, because you ca
Am Mittwoch, den 26.07.2006, 16:58 -0400 schrieb Tom Lane:
> Susanne Ebrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is a cute hack, but it does only a small part of what I think the
> spec says.
Thank you for compliment.
>
> In the first place, the SQL syntax is pretty clear that you can combine
> s
Susanne Ebrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> here is a patch that extends update syntax following the sql standard.
> The patch includes sgml documentation, too.
> UPDATE table SET (col1, col2, ...) = (val1, val2, ...),
> (colm, coln, ...) = (valm, valn, ...), ...;
This is a cute hack, but it do
25 matches
Mail list logo
