| From: | Marko Tiikkaja <pgmail(at)joh(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PL/PgSQL STRICT |
| Date: | 2012-12-21 16:32:23 |
| Message-ID: | 50D48F17.7040705@joh.to |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/21/12 5:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Marko Tiikkaja <pgmail(at)joh(dot)to> writes:
>> Another idea would be to force the STRICT to be immediately after
>> INSERT, UPDATE or DELETE.
>
> What about before it, ie
>
> STRICT UPDATE ...
>
> This should dodge the problem of possible conflict with table names,
> and it seems to me to read more naturally too.
Yeah, putting STRICT after the command wouldn't work for UPDATE.
I like this one best so far, so I'm going with this syntax for the next
version of the patch.
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2012-12-21 16:35:52 | Re: Event Triggers: adding information |
| Previous Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2012-12-21 16:29:56 | Re: PL/PgSQL STRICT |