Re: Why can't you define a table alias on an update?

Couldn't resist to not comment on this one:

I find this feature would be extremely useful considering the fact that
postgres supports the FROM clause in updates. This is already a useful
extension to the SQL standard, so why not make it better ?
I vote +1 to implement this !

Cheers,
Csaba.

On Mon, 2003-06-16 at 15:42, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> writes:
> > On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 06:36:57PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> It seems like a reasonable extension, but looking at the grammar just
> >> now, I think that we'd have to turn SET from an unreserved keyword to a
> >> reserved word to make this work. Not sure how many peoples' databases
> >> that would break ... but we'd probably get a few complaints ...
>
> > Would it be reasonable to have a setting that enabled/disabled this?
>
> No, unless you want to have two complete bison parsers in there. AFAIK
> there's no good way to alter the reserved-word status of a keyword on
> the fly. So either we do it, or not.
>
> I'm not necessarily opposed to doing it, I just wanted to raise a flag
> and see if anyone reading this thread would complain.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>