From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, eulerto(at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)br |
Subject: | Re: DELETE ... USING |
Date: | 2005-04-04 15:42:33 |
Message-ID: | 26339.1112629353@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> On a related note, UPDATE uses the FROM keyword to denote the list of
> relations to join with, whereas DELETE uses USING. Should we make USING
> an alias for FROM in UPDATE and if so, should we deprecate FROM? This
> would be more consistent, which I suppose is a good thing.
Of course, the entire reason this didn't happen years ago is that we
couldn't agree on what keyword to use... you sure you want to reopen
that discussion?
I don't think changing UPDATE is a good idea. It's consistent with
SELECT and people are used to it.
You could argue that something like
DELETE FROM target [ { USING | FROM } othertables ] ...
is the best compromise. Those who like consistency can write FROM,
those who don't like "FROM a FROM b" can write something else.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-04 15:47:06 | Re: DELETE ... USING |
Previous Message | Wes | 2005-04-04 15:38:56 | Re: Vacuum time degrading |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-04 15:47:06 | Re: DELETE ... USING |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-04 15:21:50 | Re: avg(int2) and avg(int8) micro-opt |