On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 06:36:57PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> nolan@celery.tssi.com writes:
> > This is the query I posted a performance question on, but I have a
> > SQL standard question about it too:
> > Why can't you define an alias on the primary table in an update query?
>
> Because there's no such syntax in the SQL standard.
>
> It seems like a reasonable extension, but looking at the grammar just
> now, I think that we'd have to turn SET from an unreserved keyword to a
> reserved word to make this work. Not sure how many peoples' databases
> that would break ... but we'd probably get a few complaints ...
Would it be reasonable to have a setting that enabled/disabled this?
Because I would **LOVE** to have aliases for UPDATE!
--
Jim C. Nasby (aka Decibel!) jim@nasby.net
Member: Triangle Fraternity, Sports Car Club of America
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"
