| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>, 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 15:58:41 |
| Message-ID: | 11096.1265212721@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Marko Tiikkaja
> <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> wrote:
>> 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
We could probably make that work for error messages, but what about
documentation? It's going to be awkward to write something like
"INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE RETURNING" every time we need to make a general
statement about the behavior of all three.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2010-02-03 16:04:57 | Re: Review of Writeable CTE Patch |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-02-03 15:58:37 | Re: rbtree test data |