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

Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Marko Tiikkaja <marko@joh.to> wrote:
>> I don't know about Tom, but I didn't like that:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5364C982.7060003@joh.to

> 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.

The point is that it's fairly messy (and bug-prone) to have a syntax
where we have to make an arbitrary choice between two reasonable
interpretations.

If you look back at the whole thread Marko's above-cited message is in,
we'd considered a bunch of different possible syntaxes for this, and
none of them had much support.  The "(*)" idea actually is starting to
look pretty good to me.
        regards, tom lane