X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45B279DCCCE for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:14:33 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02397-03 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:14:28 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.205]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33B799DCCE5 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:14:27 -0400 (AST) Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i1so2263308wra for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:14:27 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=m3bdx20L52m0stoIskPiNzcba5FErO6Z07/nmXWWQzsHq/UdCXnv6RLKH3xOpzEkCeqW30LtVLtglPKYO/fUNji+JNjatc9p/hpP+7CuePcC6loZHX8eXwjhJ3WS50b82groyzjSkhNyHXY7xX2fFnseZRsB/Fx2em+4A/qW+eQ= Received: by 10.65.235.5 with SMTP id m5mr2726965qbr; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:14:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.65.180.14 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:14:26 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 11:14:26 -0500 From: Jaime Casanova To: engineer@hlebprom.ru Subject: Re: 'AS' in 'DELETE/UPDATE' Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <902550887.20051129210156@hlebprom.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <902550887.20051129210156@hlebprom.ru> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.022 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.022] X-Spam-Score: 0.022 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200511/277 X-Sequence-Number: 23528 > It looks strange, are there any limitations or something else that > make it not possible to use 'AS' in 'DELETE' and 'UPDATE'? Of course > with described workarounds I can eliminate that problems, but I want > to know is it so in 8.x? Or why, if it right behaviour? > > -- > engineer > --- extracted from TODO --- o Allow an alias to be provided for the target table in UPDATE/DELETE This is not SQL-spec but many DBMSs allow it. --- end extracting --- -- regards, Jaime Casanova (DBA: DataBase Aniquilator ;)