Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > > > Ultimately, why not allow: > > > > > > > > > > DELETE h, tn > > > > > FROM history AS h > > > > > INNER JOIN term_node AS tn ON (h.nid = tn.nid) > > > > > INNER JOIN term_data AS td ON (td.tid = tn.tid) > > > > > WHERE h.uid = 2067 AND td.vid = 2 > > > > > > > > > > IMHO this would improve compliance towards other database systems. To > > > > > me > > > > > this seems to be in the reasonable scope of compatibility. > > > > > > > > Which "other database systems"? Only MySQL? If it is MySQL-only, we > > > > are unlikely to add it. > > > > > > The SQL standard does not support this syntax. They would have you put > > > the joins in a subselect (which is often not enough because then you > > > can't use outer joins). > > > > So the problem is that our DELETE ... USING does not allow ANSI join > > syntax? Can that be added? > > Not sure about that. USING is already an extension to the standard, so > if we extend it a bit more, it can't be a problem, can it? But this > doesn't solve Jean Michel's problem, because MySQL does not support > DELETE USING (or does it?).
Right, but if we support ANSI joins in the USING clause, at least we would have a _functional_ equivalent, which we don't know because of missing outer join support. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
