From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
Date: | 2014-09-02 14:24:11 |
Message-ID: | 20140902142411.GD27095@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-09-02 10:21:50 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> writes:
> > For example:
>
> > UPDATE foo WHERE bar = 1; -- must affect exactly one row
> > PERFORM UPDATE foo WHERE bar = 1; -- can affect any number of rows
>
> FWIW, I agree with the position that this would be a completely wrong
> thing to do. UPDATE should work like it does in plain SQL. If you want
> a restriction to "exactly one row", that needs to be a modifier.
>
> I take no position on how the modifier should be spelled, though.
Personally I think
ONE ROW UPDATE ...
reads nicely and SQL-ish. But it's not very expandable to other numbers.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2014-09-02 14:26:31 | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
Previous Message | Vik Fearing | 2014-09-02 14:23:21 | Re: ALTER SYSTEM RESET? |