Re: PL/pgSQL 2

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?