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

Re: PL/Perl: spi_prepare() and RETURNING

From: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "PG Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PL/Perl: spi_prepare() and RETURNING
Date: 2006-08-24 19:22:51
Message-ID: 36e682920608241222s40228dcdsdbcec91220f4f504@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 8/24/06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> This reminds me of a consideration I had been intending to bring up on
> the mailing lists: what exactly do we want to do with the SPI API for
> RETURNING queries?  The current behavior is that it still returns
> SPI_OK_INSERT and so on, but also creates a SPI_tuptable.  Is this
> what we want?  Perhaps we should invent additional return codes
> SPI_OK_INSERT_RETURNING etc.

I like adding RETURNING-specific return codes.

> Another issue I noted in that same area is that spi.c does not set
> SPI_processed for a utility statement, even if the utility statement
> returns tuples.  Is this a bug, or should we leave it alone?

I think it's a bug.

-- 
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1300
EnterpriseDB Corporation            | fax: 732.331.1301
33 Wood Ave S, 2nd Floor            | jharris(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
Iselin, New Jersey 08830            | http://www.enterprisedb.com/

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-08-24 20:14:31
Subject: Re: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2006-08-24 19:17:19
Subject: Re: PL/Perl: spi_prepare() and RETURNING

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