Re: Support UPDATE table SET(*)=...
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Support UPDATE table SET(*)=... |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAM3SWZR8QsqorECT3AgT4pHAOaUbuR90TZsQYZqYR7nu1HMzLQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Support UPDATE table SET(*)=... (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Support UPDATE table SET(*)=...
Re: Support UPDATE table SET(*)=... |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > If we were to go in this direction, it would be nice to at the same time > add a similar whole-record syntax for INSERT. I'm not sure exactly what > that should look like though. Also, again, we ought to be paying > attention to how this would match up with UPSERT syntax. I expressed concern about allowing this for UPSERT [1]. To be fair, VoltDB's new UPSERT statement allows something similar (or rather mandates it, since you cannot just update some columns), and that doesn't look wholly unreasonable. I still don't like the idea of supporting this, though. I'm not aware of any other system allowing something like this for either MERGE or a non-standard UPSERT. [1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAM3SWZT=VXBJ7QKAidAmYbU40aP10udSqOOqhViX3Ykj7WBv9A@mail.gmail.com -- Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: