Re: Bug in PL/pgSQL GET DIAGNOSTICS?

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>, PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bug in PL/pgSQL GET DIAGNOSTICS?
Date: 2002-09-26 22:26:53
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0209261915190.1149-100000@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian writes:

> To summarize, with non-INSTEAD, we get the tag, oid, and tuple count of
> the original query. Everyone agrees on that.
>
> For non-INSTEAD, we have:

[I think this is the INSTEAD part.]

> 1) return original tag
> 2) return oid if all inserts in the rule insert only one row
> 3) return tuple count of all commands with the same tag

I think proper encapsulation would require us to simulate the original
command, hiding the fact that something else happened internally. I know
it's really hard to determine the "virtual" count of an update or delete
if the command had acted on a permament base table, but I'd rather
maintain the encapsulation of updateable views and return "unknown" in
that case.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2002-09-26 22:28:18 Re: AIX compilation problems (was Re: Proposal ...)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-09-26 22:25:23 Re: Reconstructing FKs in pg_dump