From: | Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
Subject: | Re: Support UPDATE table SET(*)=... |
Date: | 2014-10-17 16:05:09 |
Message-ID: | CABRT9RAaA44A=7O8armYFmmXoRTW_0P20acazTdds_=_hoGWJA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Oct 17, 2014 6:16 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> A more realistic objection goes like this:
>
> create table foo(f int, g int);
> update foo x set x = (1,2); -- works
> alter table foo add column x int;
> update foo x set x = (1,2,3); -- no longer works
>
> It's not a real good thing if a column addition or renaming can
> so fundamentally change the nature of a query.
I think a significant use case for this feature is when you already have a
row-value and want to persist it in the database, like you can do with
INSERT:
insert into foo select * from populate_record_json(null::foo, '{...}');
In this case the opposite is true: requiring explicit column names would
break the query if you add columns to the table. The fact that you can't
reasonably use populate_record/_json with UPDATE is a significant omission.
IMO this really speaks for supporting shorthand whole-row assignment,
whatever the syntax.
Regards,
Marti
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Feng Tian | 2014-10-17 16:10:13 | Optimizer on sort aggregate |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2014-10-17 16:00:41 | Re: Vitesse DB call for testing |