Re: MOVE strangeness

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Jeroen T(dot) Vermeulen" <jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: MOVE strangeness
Date: 2002-12-27 05:18:42
Message-ID: 22129.1040966322@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

"Jeroen T. Vermeulen" <jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl> writes:
> Okay, given that, is there really any reason why MOVE should return the
> number of rows that would have been fetched? Why not report the number
> of rows moved? Having two different MOVE commands from the same starting
> positions yield indistinguishable results yet bring you to different
> states is very, very awkward and possibly quite useless. Better yet,
> why should FETCH report the number of rows fetched instead of the
> number of rows moved when you're going to extract the former from the
> PQresult's PQntuples() anyway?

The main reason why neither of these are likely to change is that it
will break existing, working applications if we change it. "Why not"
is not an argument that will win out against that point ... especially
not when it's debatable whether the proposed change is actually an
improvement.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vadim Mikheev 2002-12-27 05:47:50 Vacation
Previous Message Jeroen T. Vermeulen 2002-12-27 04:15:47 Re: MOVE strangeness

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Brown 2002-12-27 08:04:36 Re: MOVE strangeness
Previous Message Jeroen T. Vermeulen 2002-12-27 04:15:47 Re: MOVE strangeness