| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | joneil(at)combimatrix(dot)com |
| Cc: | "Stephan Szabo" <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SELECT updatability clause defective. |
| Date: | 2001-05-11 13:57:41 |
| Message-ID: | 4315.989589461@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
"Jerome O'Neil" <joneil(at)combimatrix(dot)com> writes:
> Which makes me wonder: What is the point, if not to
> restrict updatability?
Postgres' SELECT FOR UPDATE marks rows for update, not columns.
Thus nominating columns in it would make no sense.
It was probably an unfortunate decision to use "FOR UPDATE" as
the syntax for this feature, since the spec uses that phrase
to deal with something completely different. But we're not gonna
change it now, especially since it's not getting in the way of
adding support for the spec's feature.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-05-11 14:16:21 | Re: help me, please |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-05-11 13:47:06 | Re: Alter table add column ignores default |