From: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "PG Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PL/Perl: spi_prepare() and RETURNING |
Date: | 2006-08-24 19:22:51 |
Message-ID: | 36e682920608241222s40228dcdsdbcec91220f4f504@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 8/24/06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> This reminds me of a consideration I had been intending to bring up on
> the mailing lists: what exactly do we want to do with the SPI API for
> RETURNING queries? The current behavior is that it still returns
> SPI_OK_INSERT and so on, but also creates a SPI_tuptable. Is this
> what we want? Perhaps we should invent additional return codes
> SPI_OK_INSERT_RETURNING etc.
I like adding RETURNING-specific return codes.
> Another issue I noted in that same area is that spi.c does not set
> SPI_processed for a utility statement, even if the utility statement
> returns tuples. Is this a bug, or should we leave it alone?
I think it's a bug.
--
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/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-24 20:14:31 | Re: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-08-24 19:17:19 | Re: PL/Perl: spi_prepare() and RETURNING |