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

Re: new RETURNING clause and Pg.pm

From: "Brandon Metcalf" <bmetcalf(at)nortel(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: new RETURNING clause and Pg.pm
Date: 2008-06-26 18:17:36
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.58L.0806261316470.9186@cash.us.nortel.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general
b == bmetcalf(at)cash(dot)us(dot)nortel(dot)com writes:

 b> t == tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us writes:

 b>  t> "Brandon Metcalf" <bmetcalf(at)nortel(dot)com> writes:
 b>  t> > I just upgraded to 8.3.3 and taking advantage of the RETURNING clause
 b>  t> > which is really cool.  I've found that with Pg.pm $r->resultStatus
 b>  t> > returns the integer "2" when the RETURNING clause is used on an
 b>  t> > insert.

 b>  t> > Of course, without using RETURNING the status is the constant
 b>  t> > PGRES_COMMAND_OK.

 b>  t> Sounds to me like a bug in Pg.pm --- it's probably not expecting
 b>  t> a result to come back from an INSERT.  You oughta nag its author
 b>  t> about that.


 b> I'll look through the Pg.pm code and see what I can find.


My mistake.  The constant that gets returned is PGRES_TUPLES_OK which
is what I would expect.  This corresponds to 2.

-- 
Brandon

In response to

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Phillip MillsDate: 2008-06-26 19:24:41
Subject: Partial Index Too Literal?
Previous:From: Ryan VanMiddlesworthDate: 2008-06-26 17:54:44
Subject: Query with varchar not using functional index

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