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-subquery
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 we don't want the
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
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. :)
+1
I am
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?
o Allow UPDATE
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 out
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 for now.
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
multiple columns
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
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 standard
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 othertab WHERE
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 (foo, bar, baz) =
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't find any
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 because I remember
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 WHERE key = mytab.key);
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 any new
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
simple
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 can
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) =
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 UPDATE
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 separate SELECT
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
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,
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't provide any
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 does
25 matches
Mail list logo
