Re: [HACKERS] extension for sql update - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Florian G. Pflug
Subject Re: [HACKERS] extension for sql update
Date
Msg-id 44C8DEDB.9080408@phlo.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: extension for sql update  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:
> Susanne Ebrecht <miracee@miracee.de> 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
> always just write the separate expressions in the simple one to
> one way.  If we do offer the row-on-the-left syntax then people
> will try to put sub-selects on the right, and won't get anything
> beyond an unhelpful "syntax error" message.  So my vote would be
> to leave it alone until we have a more complete implementation.

It has the advantage that inserts and updates look more "alike".
If your sql statements are generated by code, then that removes
the need of a special case for updates.

greetings, Florian Pflug

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Darcy Buskermolen
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Provide 8-byte transaction IDs to user level
Next
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Resurrecting per-page cleaner for btree