Re: "select ..... for update of ..." doesn't support full qualified table name?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Vlad <marchenko(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Matt Miller <mattm(at)epx(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: "select ..... for update of ..." doesn't support full qualified table name?
Date: 2005-09-06 21:01:56
Message-ID: 20542.1126040516@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Vlad <marchenko(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Though question is - doesn't it seem logical to be able to use full
> table names in FOR UPDATE part like I can use them in WHERE part (if I
> don't need/want to use an alias)? Is it something postgresql speciffic
> or it's SQL standard (pardon my ignorance)?

The entire construct is Postgres-specific, so you can't really point
to the spec and say it's wrong.

I don't see any merit whatever in the "I shouldn't need to use an alias"
argument. If you don't have unique aliases then you're going to have
problems anyway.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Roman Neuhauser 2005-09-06 21:05:02 Re: How to write jobs in postgresql
Previous Message Vlad 2005-09-06 20:57:56 Re: "select ..... for update of ..." doesn't support full qualified table name?