Re: PL/pgSQL 2

From: Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info>
To: Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>
Cc: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PL/pgSQL 2
Date: 2014-09-02 21:23:26
Message-ID: 5406354E.5050208@wi3ck.info
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 09/02/2014 12:20 PM, Joel Jacobson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry for being unclear, I didn't mean to suggest the main concern is
>>> updating *all* rows.
>>> The main concern is when you have a rather complex UPDATE WHERE clause,
>>> aiming to update exactly one row. Some of the expressions might be
>>> assertions, to just double-verify the values and to make it stand-out
>>> you are checking those expressions.
>>
>>
>> These are two different problems which probably need two different
>> solutions. Making the default behavior of a set-based command that
>> it throw an error if the resulting set is not exactly one row
>> doesn't seem like the right solution to either one of them.
>
> I see your point.
> Basically, we have two types of applications where PL/pgSQL is commonly used.
> a) OLTP applications where you typically operate on one row for each
> UPDATE command.

Your idea of what an OLTP application is seems flawed.

> b) Data warehouseing applications where you process multiple rows in
> each UPDATE command.

Ditto.

Regards,
Jan

--
Jan Wieck
Senior Software Engineer
http://slony.info

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2014-09-02 21:23:58 Re: Escaping from blocked send() reprised.
Previous Message Joel Jacobson 2014-09-02 21:21:50 Re: PL/pgSQL 2