From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Updated INSERT/UPDATE RETURNING |
Date: | 2006-08-05 20:38:04 |
Message-ID: | 1898.1154810284@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Jonah H. Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 8/5/06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> BTW, it occurs to me to wonder whether we've picked a good choice
>> of syntax. I don't remember where the suggestion to use "RETURNING"
>> came from (did we borrow it from another DBMS?).
> Oracle. DB2 uses something similar to SELECT * FROM (UPDATE tbl SET ... );
Oh, okay.
>> The simplest alternative that comes to mind is to use RETURNS instead
>> I don't have a strong feeling either way, but now is the time to
>> decide.
> I don't care either way, RETURNS is fine I guess.
Well, if the syntax is compatible with Oracle as-is, that's probably
a sufficient reason to stick with it. It's not like we haven't got
any other non-spec reserved words ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ron Mayer | 2006-08-05 20:45:09 | Re: 8.2 features status |
Previous Message | Lukas Smith | 2006-08-05 20:15:56 | Re: TODO system WAS: 8.2 features status |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-06 03:57:18 | Re: Forcing current WAL file to be archived |
Previous Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2006-08-05 19:20:12 | Re: Updated INSERT/UPDATE RETURNING |