Re: Updated INSERT/UPDATE RETURNING

On 8/5/06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Huh? Why'd you remove it? I can't imagine it makes things
> significantly simpler to omit that case, and even if you can't
> think of uses for it, I can (taking jobs from a to-do queue for
> instance).

It can be added back. Dequeing is a good use-case idea though :)

> BTW, it occurs to me to wonder whether we've picked a good choice
> of syntax. I don't remember where the suggestion to use "RETURNING"
> came from (did we borrow it from another DBMS?).

Oracle. DB2 uses something similar to SELECT * FROM (UPDATE tbl SET ... );

> But AFAICS this syntax will require the introducing keyword to be a fully reserved
> word, and since RETURNING is not listed as a reserved word in the
> SQL spec, reserving it is arguably a spec violation.

True.

> The simplest alternative that comes to mind is to use RETURNS instead
> I don't have a strong feeling either way, but now is the time to
> decide.

I don't care either way, RETURNS is fine I guess.

> OK, but we need a final version soon.

Sure thing.

--
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1300
EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301
33 Wood Ave S, 2nd Floor | jharris(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/