X-Original-To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Received: from spampd.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A0E34758F1
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:02:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from email04.aon.at (WARSL401PIP5.highway.telekom.at [195.3.96.90])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6EF39475458
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:02:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (qmail 455422 invoked from network); 17 Apr 2003 16:02:13 -0000
Received: from m156p017.dipool.highway.telekom.at (HELO cantor)
	([62.46.9.113]) (envelope-sender <mkoi-pg@aon.at>)
	by qmail4rs.highway.telekom.at (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
	for <mallah@trade-india.com>; 17 Apr 2003 16:02:13 -0000
From: Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at>
To: Rajesh Kumar Mallah <mallah@trade-india.com>
Cc: Christoph Haller <ch@rodos.fzk.de>, pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: getting rid of "Adding missing FROM-clause entry...."
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 18:02:12 +0200
Message-ID: <6ijt9vgiapkddv4o7cvj9rjprbmdkkcd8b@4ax.com>
References: <3E9EB59F.B01FBF60@rodos.fzk.de>
	<200304172021.28073.mallah@trade-india.com>
	<dbht9vctbp8p6cmt5jt8rvaqb8tf34p2ci@4ax.com>
	<200304172122.17761.mallah@trade-india.com>
In-Reply-To: <200304172122.17761.mallah@trade-india.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-32.2 required=5.0
	tests=BAYES_01,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,REFERENCES,
	REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_FORTE autolearn=ham	version=2.50
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp)
X-Archive-Number: 200304/280
X-Sequence-Number: 12981

On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 21:22:17 +0530, Rajesh Kumar Mallah
<mallah@trade-india.com> wrote:
>BTW any idea why the query which i posted is not
>working? and issuing a NOTICE.

I guess, in 

	UPDATE t1
	   SET ...
	  FROM (SELECT ... FROM t2
	        WHERE t2.id = t1.id);

the subselect is not correlated because t1 and the subquery are on the
same level.  So the subquery is treated like a standalone query and as
it does not have t1 in its FROM clause, t1 is added automatically.
Then the result of the subquery is joined to each row of t1 for the
update.  This also explains why all rows were updated to the same
values.

Servus
 Manfred