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
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 |