| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Chris Dunlop <chris(at)onthe(dot)net(dot)au>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Update using sub-select table in schema |
| Date: | 2006-10-02 17:35:31 |
| Message-ID: | 12871.1159810531@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> The comments for refnameRangeTblEntry indicate that at one time we
> thought we saw support for our approach in the spec:
Here is the discussion thread that settled on our current behavior:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2002-03/msg00403.php
It looks like we followed Oracle.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-10-02 20:14:25 | Re: BUG #2666: how do cluster with 7.4.13 ? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-10-02 17:23:16 | Re: Update using sub-select table in schema |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | uwcssa | 2006-10-02 17:37:21 | undescribe |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-10-02 17:23:16 | Re: Update using sub-select table in schema |