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

On 10/17/14 5:03 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> Hm, I didn't understand your objection:
>
> <quoting>
> So e.g.:
> UPDATE foo f SET f = ..;
>
> would resolve to the table, despite there being a column called "f"?
> That would break backwards compatibility.
> </quoting>
>
> That's not correct: it should work exactly as 'select' does; given a
> conflict resolve the field name, so no backwards compatibility issue.

local:marko=# show server_version;
server_version
----------------
9.1.13
(1 row)

local:marko=#* create table foo(f int);
CREATE TABLE
local:marko=#* update foo f set f=1;
UPDATE 0

This query would change meaning with your suggestion.

I'm not saying it would be a massive problem in practice, but I think we
should first consider options which don't break backwards compatibility,
even if some consider them "less clean".

.marko