| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "John D(dot) Burger" <john(at)mitre(dot)org> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-general general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: using schema-qualified names in INSERTs |
| Date: | 2006-02-13 17:28:43 |
| Message-ID: | 2530.1139851723@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"John D. Burger" <john(at)mitre(dot)org> writes:
> I sometimes have trouble understanding the edicts of the wise ones -
> anyone know what the rationale for this is?
I'm not sure whether the SQL spec authors foresaw this (or maybe even
have added it themselves in SQL2003), but the main reason why not allow
table-qualification of INSERT and UPDATE targets is that qualification
in this context should mean sub-fields of composite-type columns. We
do support the latter, since 8.0 I think. If we tried to support both
we'd have ambiguity problems.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | William Leite Araújo | 2006-02-13 18:35:15 | type int2vector |
| Previous Message | alexandre - aldeia digital | 2006-02-13 17:22:39 | differences between pg_dump and pg_restore with -t |