Re: Review of Writeable CTE Patch

From: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Review of Writeable CTE Patch
Date: 2010-02-03 16:04:57
Message-ID: 4B699EA9.4040200@cs.helsinki.fi
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2010-02-03 16:09 UTC+2, Robert Haas wrote:
> Why can't we complain about the actual SQL statement the user issued?
> Like, say:
>
> INSERT requires RETURNING when used within a referenced CTE

The SELECT equivalent of this query looks like this:
=> with recursive t as (select * from t) values(true);
ERROR: recursive query "t" does not have the form non-recursive-term
UNION [ALL] recursive-term

but I didn't want to throw people off to think that they can use
INSERT/UPDATE/RETURNING in a RECURSIVE CTE, just to get complaints about
syntax error.

Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-02-03 16:08:19 Re: Review of Writeable CTE Patch
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-02-03 15:58:41 Re: Review of Writeable CTE Patch