Re: Support UPDATE table SET(*)=...

Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> writes:
> local:marko=#* create table foo(f int);
> CREATE TABLE
> local:marko=#* update foo f set f=1;
> UPDATE 0

> This query would change meaning with your suggestion.

I think it wouldn't; Merlin is proposing that f would be taken as the
field name. A more realistic objection goes like this:

create table foo(f int, g int);
update foo x set x = (1,2); -- works
alter table foo add column x int;
update foo x set x = (1,2,3); -- no longer works

It's not a real good thing if a column addition or renaming can
so fundamentally change the nature of a query.

regards, tom lane