Re: DO ... RETURNING

* 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