Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> writes:
> On 2011-02-26 2:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I've gone ahead and applied the code portion of the patch, with
>> modifications as per discussion, and other editorialization.
> Thanks a lot!
> One thing bothers me though: what was the reason for requiring a
> RETURNING clause for data-modifying statements in WITH?
That test was in your patch, no? I moved the code to another place
but it's still enforcing the same thing, namely that you can't reference
the output of an INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE that hasn't got RETURNING.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: David Fetter||Date: 2011-02-26 02:46:01|
|Subject: Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the
|Previous:||From: Marko Tiikkaja||Date: 2011-02-26 02:19:41|
|Subject: Re: wCTE: about the name of the feature|