Re: [HACKERS] extension for sql update

Susanne Ebrecht wrote:
> >>>>>> Is it too hard to rip it back out once the full row support
> >>>>>> arrives? That seems speculation at best anyway.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> That's what I was thinking. Glad someone else replied. ;-)
> >>>>>
> >>>> If you're looking for votes, +1. I'll gladly take a subset of the
> >>>> SQL standard UPDATE table SET (...) = (...) over having nothing.
> >>>>
> >>> +1 here, too. :)
> >>>
> >>>
> >> +1
> >>
> >
> > I am working now to get this into 8.2.
> >
> >
> I am glad to read this. But what does it mean to me? Shall I change the
> patch someway?

I have merged your patch into current CVS and applied it; attached.
There was quite a bit of code drift. One drift area was the new
RETURNING clause; that was easy to fix. A more complex case is the
code no longer has values as ResTargets --- it is a simple a_expr list,
so I changed the critical assignment in gram.y from:

res_col->val = (Node *)copyObject(res_val->val);

to:

res_col->val = (Node *)copyObject(res_val);

Hope that is OK. Without that fix, it crashed. I also merged your SGML
syntax and grammer addition into the exiting UPDATE main entry.

--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +