On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 12:06:23AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> > Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >> Rather than hard-wiring a special case for any of these things, I'd much
> >> rather see us implement INSERT...RETURNING and UPDATE...RETURNING as per
> >> previous suggestions.
>
> > I wonder whether the ui tools need anything more low level than that. In
> > general sticking their grubby fingers in the query the user entered seems
> > wrong and they would have to tack on a RETURNING clause.
>
> That was mentioned before as a possible objection, but I'm not sure that
> I buy it. The argument seems to be that a client-side driver would
> understand the query and table structure well enough to know what to do
> with a returned pkey value, but not well enough to understand how to
> tack on a RETURNING clause to request that value. This seems a bit
> bogus.
>
> There may be some point in implementing a protocol-level equivalent of
> RETURNING just to reduce the overhead on both sides, but I think we
> ought to get the RETURNING functionality in place first and then worry
> about that...
Along those lines, I don't see anything on the TODO list about this...
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461