Re: DO ... RETURNING

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: DO ... RETURNING
Date: 2013-06-10 19:32:44
Message-ID: 20130610193244.GA7200@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Pavel Stehule (pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> 2013/6/10 Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:
> > If there was then what were the arguments against doing this ?

I don't recall offhand, but it would be *extremely* useful to have.

> > Or was this just that it was not thought important at that time ?

For my part, without looking at what needs to happen for it, big +1
for adding it.

> I don't like this idea. I know so DO is +/- function, but it is too
> restrict. I hope so we will have a procedures with possibility unbound
> queries.

I don't see that as an argument against adding support for what can be
done today within our existing structures and API.

> and you don't need to define output structure - what is much more user friendly.

Sure, some day this would be a nice addition. There's no need to hold
up adding support for a defined table return type for DO waiting for
this other feature to happen though.

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Fetter 2013-06-10 19:34:47 Re: DO ... RETURNING
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2013-06-10 19:23:19 Re: DO ... RETURNING