Tom Lane wrote:
>The effect of this, as Andrew says, is that in this particular context
>you can't write SET as an alias unless you write AS first. This is
>probably not going to surprise anyone in the UPDATE case, since the
>ambiguity inherent in writing
> UPDATE foo set SET ...
>is pretty obvious. However it might surprise someone in the DELETE
>context.
>
>
You probably avoid that if you have a separate rule for the DELETE case.
That raises this question: how far do we want to go in unfactoring the
grammar to handle such cases?
cheers
andrew
