>>> True. His only real snark was in reponse to the "let me google that > for you" link. OTOH, he's arguing with Tom Lane about whether his SQL > is well formed. There's arguing on the internet is stupid, then > there's arguing with Tom Lane about SQL is stupid. I wasn't arguing with Tom Lane about the SQL. I was using standard SQL the kind used by all other databases. Tom correctly pointed out that postgres does not deal with that particular SQL statement the way other databases do and wrote it the way postgres wants it. As far as I know update table set x=y from table inner join other table is a pretty standard way of doing things. Tom pointed out that in postgres you have to leave out the second mention of the table as postgres takes that as a self join. > > Have to admit when I saw that I said to myself OP needs someone to tell > him "whoa, big fella". ÂI've been in similar situations where I was > "sure" of one thing and the problem must be elsewhere, when of course I > was wrong about the one thing... > > I have been wrong lots of times. It's not a big deal. In this case I was expecting postgres to act one way because most of my experience is with other databases and that's the way other databases handle things. I would think that's a common occurrence here. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
