| From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SET syntax in INSERT |
| Date: | 2016-01-14 19:48:49 |
| Message-ID: | 5697FBA1.8050709@joh.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-01-14 20:33, Tom Lane wrote:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>>> Probably there is less risk than 7 years ago, but still creating own
>>>> syntax isn't the best idea. This is syntactic sugar only and different
>>>> from ANSi SQL or common standard.
>
> It's more than syntactic sugar; you are going to have to invent semantics,
> as well, because it's less than clear what partial-field assignments
> should do.
I don't really care for such. In my opinion it would be fine if this
simply was only "syntactic sugar", and trying to do any tricks like this
would simply raise an exception.
.m
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vitaly Burovoy | 2016-01-14 19:50:18 | Re: SET syntax in INSERT |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-01-14 19:33:34 | Re: SET syntax in INSERT |