Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> This description confuses two quite separate issues. > > > Yea, it does. > > > How is this text: > > > * Allow DELETE to handle table aliases for self-joins > > > There is no way to create a table alias for the deleted table for use > > in the DELETE WHERE clause. The agreed approach is to allow a USING > > clause to specify additional tables. UPDATE already has an optional > > FROM clause for this purpose. > > Not a lot better. They really should be two separate issues, because we > could in theory do either without the other. > > * Allow an alias to be provided for the target table in UPDATE/DELETE > > This is not SQL-spec but many DBMSs allow it.
I don't think we would ever do the above item. I see no purpose to allowing the UPDATE/DELETE table to have an alias as long as you can create another reference to the table that does have an alias. In fact, having a alias for the deleted item seems too prone to confusion. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
