Re: Support UPDATE table SET(*)=... - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: Support UPDATE table SET(*)=...
Date
Msg-id CAM3SWZR8QsqorECT3AgT4pHAOaUbuR90TZsQYZqYR7nu1HMzLQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Support UPDATE table SET(*)=...  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Support UPDATE table SET(*)=...
Re: Support UPDATE table SET(*)=...
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> If we were to go in this direction, it would be nice to at the same time
> add a similar whole-record syntax for INSERT.  I'm not sure exactly what
> that should look like though.  Also, again, we ought to be paying
> attention to how this would match up with UPSERT syntax.

I expressed concern about allowing this for UPSERT [1].

To be fair, VoltDB's new UPSERT statement allows something similar (or
rather mandates it, since you cannot just update some columns), and
that doesn't look wholly unreasonable. I still don't like the idea of
supporting this, though. I'm not aware of any other system allowing
something like this for either MERGE or a non-standard UPSERT.

[1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAM3SWZT=VXBJ7QKAidAmYbU40aP10udSqOOqhViX3Ykj7WBv9A@mail.gmail.com
-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Support UPDATE table SET(*)=...
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Support UPDATE table SET(*)=...