2008/11/6 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> 2008/11/6 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>>> RETURN isn't one of them.
>> It should be enhanced - my initial proposal of return query expected
>> so return query is last statement, that isn't now. So we could add
>> this check there.
> Well, changing the semantics of an already-released statement carries a
> risk of breaking existing apps that aren't expecting it to change FOUND.
> So I'd want to see a pretty strong case why this is important --- not
> just that it didn't meet someone's didn't-read-the-manual expectation.
It's should do some problems, but I belive much less than change of
casting or tsearch2 integration. And actually it's not ortogonal.
Every not dynamic statement change FOUND variable.
> regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-11-06 21:26:17|
|Subject: Re: [WIP] In-place upgrade |
|Previous:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2008-11-06 21:04:49|
|Subject: postgres buildfarm member "dugong"|
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: William Davis||Date: 2008-11-07 01:45:27|
|Subject: Fwd: postgresql83 and ossp/uuid|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-11-06 18:19:31|
|Subject: Re: BUG #4516: FOUND variable does not work after RETURN QUERY |