Description Joseph Vincens 2011-10-26 10:04:10 EDT

Replace to result set has a design problem.   It's implementation works only
with row records and is inconsistent with the implementation of the other
statements.

Consider the open from result set:   No default SQL statement is created for a
select for update.   You have to code the required for update of clause by
hand.   Typically the developer would not include the record key in the for
update of columns.

Compare the replace to result set statement.   The DB manager will require the
columns replaced to match the for update of list in the select.  However
replace to result set ( unlike replace to data source ) does not provide any
way of specifying the column list other than inferring it from a row or entity.
  This means the developer must either include all columns in the row in the
for update clause on the select, or provide an alternate row record or entity
for used in the replace to result set statement.

For consistency with the rest of the statements, you could support

replace a, b, c to rs ;

like you do with add.