Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: wCTE: about the name of the feature

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: wCTE: about the name of the feature
Date: 2011-02-26 02:41:20
Message-ID: 2113.1298688080@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: David FetterDate: 2011-02-26 02:46:01
Subject: Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning?
Previous:From: Marko TiikkajaDate: 2011-02-26 02:19:41
Subject: Re: wCTE: about the name of the feature

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group