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

"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