Re: Why can't you define a table alias on an update? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Avi Schwartz
Subject Re: Why can't you define a table alias on an update?
Date
Msg-id 2C45438E-A018-11D7-8203-000393AE5044@CFFtechnologies.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Why can't you define a table alias on an update?  (nolan@celery.tssi.com)
List pgsql-general
I also add my vote for allowing aliases in updates.

BTW, in my code I never use 'as' for table aliases.  For column aliases
however, postgresql requires it.

Avi


On Monday, Jun 16, 2003, at 09:06 America/Chicago,
nolan@celery.tssi.com wrote:

>> I'm not necessarily opposed to doing it, I just wanted to raise a flag
>> and see if anyone reading this thread would complain.
>
> Oracle permits table aliases on an update statement, though in Oracle
> the word 'as' to denote a table alias is not permitted while 'as' is
> optional for column aliases, whereas in pgsql it is REQUIRED in both
> cases.
>
> Tom, is there an online reference to the full SQL standard for those
> of us
> who don't have copies of it on our bookshelf or engrained in memory?
> :-)


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "Mattias Kregert"
Date:
Subject: Re: trigger interruption on "SPI_execp"
Next
From: Carlos
Date:
Subject: Excluding tables from pg_restore