Re: Proposal: RETURNING primary_key()

From: "Igal (at) Lucee(dot)org" <igal(at)lucee(dot)org>
To: Ian Barwick <ian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: RETURNING primary_key()
Date: 2016-03-08 00:56:01
Message-ID: 56DE2321.3030809@lucee.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Ian,

On 3/7/2016 4:17 PM, Ian Barwick wrote:
>
> FYI something similar has been proposed before:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/53953EFB.8070701@2ndquadrant.com
>
> The linked thread might provide more insights into the issues surrounding
> this proposal.

It's funny how I've encountered the same issue and reached the same
conclusion as you did. The main difference is that I suggested
returning NULL values instead of throwing an error.

I read through the whole thread and it seems to me like there was quite
a bit of support for that feature, with Tom still unconvinced that this
feature is useful -- but quite a few others who see the benefit in it,
especially Java users who experience that problem first hand -- and
Rushabh complaining about white space in the patch?

I'm not sure why it was not accepted at the end?

Igal

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2016-03-08 01:09:21 Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table.
Previous Message Robert Haas 2016-03-08 00:50:35 Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table.