| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "John Hansen" <john(at)geeknet(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, "Michael Fuhr" <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org>, "Mitch Pirtle" <mitch(dot)pirtle(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tatsuo Ishii" <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, operationsengineer1(at)yahoo(dot)com, pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [NOVICE] Last ID Problem |
| Date: | 2005-02-01 16:08:27 |
| Message-ID: | 14991.1107274107@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-novice |
"John Hansen" <john(at)geeknet(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>>> Since OID's are now deprecated, and will eventually disappear,
No one has stated that they will disappear.
>>> wouldn't it be a good idea, to have INSERT and UPDATE
>>> return a copy of the tuple that was inserted/updated?
>>
>> How about the TID?
> Yea, that'd work.
You could only trust it for the duration of the inserting or updating
transaction. Which might be enough ... but changing it would certainly
break all existing apps that use this feature.
I think the correct solution is not to mess with what's admittedly a
legacy aspect of our client API. Instead we should invent the "INSERT
RETURNING" and "UPDATE RETURNING" commands that have been discussed
repeatedly (see the pghackers archives). That would allow people to get
what they want, and do so in only one network round trip, without any
artificial dependencies on OIDs or TIDs or anything else. It'd be
unportable, but surely no more so than relying on OIDs or TIDs ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-02-01 16:15:01 | Re: Group-count estimation statistics |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-02-01 16:05:06 | Updated FAQ |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-02-01 16:56:52 | Re: [NOVICE] Last ID Problem |
| Previous Message | James DeMond | 2005-02-01 15:06:30 | Re: Arrays of user-defined data types in other user-defined |