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

Re: Review of Writeable CTE Patch

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>
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 14:09:46
Message-ID: 603c8f071002030609k4ffd8223xd704461cd0a9dad9@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Marko Tiikkaja
<marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2010-02-03 11:04 UTC+2, Takahiro Itagaki wrote:
>> Hi, I'm reviewing the writable CTE patch. The code logic seems to be
>> pretty good, but I have a couple of comments about error cases:
>>
>> * Did we have a consensus about user-visible "DML WITH" messages?
>>   The term is used in error messages in many places, for example:
>>    "DML WITH without RETURNING is only allowed inside an unreferenced CTE"
>>   Since we don't use "DML WITH" nor "CTE" in documentation,
>>   I'd like to avoid such technical acronyms in logs if we had better names,
>>   or we should have a section to explain them in docs.
>
> We have yet to reach a consensus on the name for this feature.  I don't
> think we have any really good candidates, but I like "DML WITH" best so far.

Why can't we complain about the actual SQL statement the user issued?
Like, say:

INSERT requires RETURNING when used within a referenced CTE

...Robert

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andres FreundDate: 2010-02-03 14:19:49
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: Faster CREATE DATABASE by delaying fsync (was 8.4.1 ubuntu karmic slow createdb)
Previous:From: Michael MeskesDate: 2010-02-03 13:57:19
Subject: Re: NaN/Inf fix for ECPG Re: out-of-scope cursor errors

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