Re: Updated INSERT/UPDATE RETURNING

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  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