| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 8.2: select from an INSERT returning? |
| Date: | 2006-09-20 19:04:18 |
| Message-ID: | 1158779058.30652.131.camel@dogma.v10.wvs |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 14:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> > What would be involved in making INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE ... RETURNING be
> > on the same level as other table-like things such as VALUES (...),
> > ..., (...)?
>
> Getting rid of their side-effects, which of course ain't happening.
>
> The problem is the surrounding query might try to execute the command
> multiple times ... or not at all ... and what would you like that to
> mean?
>
Wouldn't that be the same as a volatile set-returning function? As I
understand it, 8.2 introduced a feature to prevent a volatile function
from being executed more times than it is listed in the query.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-09-20 19:29:47 | Re: Problems converting between C string and Datum |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-20 18:08:01 | Re: 8.2: select from an INSERT returning? |