Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
Date
Msg-id CANP8+jKLLxMk1pwC_QZVtSA2s9rG9o7hoNwOooXz_+yOUeiLhw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 3 February 2018 at 23:17, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> I started looking at SQL Server's MERGE to verify that it also does
>>> not impose any restrictions on subselects in a MERGE UPDATE's
>>> targetlist, just like Oracle. Unsurprisingly, it does not. More
>>> surprisingly, I noticed that it also doesn't seem to impose
>>> restrictions on what can appear in WHEN ... AND quals.
>>
>> You earlier agreed that subselects were not part of the Standard.
>
> You know that I didn't say that, Simon.

I'm happy to quote your words.

"I've acknowledged that the standard has something to
say on this that supports your position, which has real weight."

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAH2-WzkAjSN1H-ym-sSDh%2B6EJWmEhyHdDStzXDB%2BFxt1hcKEgg%40mail.gmail.com

-- 
Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11