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
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. |