Re: Support UPDATE table SET(*)=...

From: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>
To: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Support UPDATE table SET(*)=...
Date: 2014-10-17 14:55:17
Message-ID: 54412DD5.3090803@joh.to
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 10/17/14 4:15 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> Any particular reason why you couldn't have just done:
>
> UPDATE table1 SET * = a,b,c, ...

That just looks wrong to me. I'd prefer (*) = .. over that any day.

> UPDATE table1 t SET t = (SELECT (a,b,c)::t FROM...);
>
> seems cleaner than the proposed syntax for row assignment. Tom
> objected though IIRC.

I don't know about Tom, but I didn't like that:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5364C982.7060003@joh.to

.marko

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Merlin Moncure 2014-10-17 15:03:41 Re: Support UPDATE table SET(*)=...
Previous Message Atri Sharma 2014-10-17 14:50:25 Re: Support UPDATE table SET(*)=...