| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, "Uwe C(dot) Schroeder" <uwe(at)oss4u(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] 8.1, OID's and plpgsql |
| Date: | 2005-12-07 04:50:02 |
| Message-ID: | 87ek4pik91.fsf@stark.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Rather than hard-wiring a special case for any of these things, I'd much
> rather see us implement INSERT...RETURNING and UPDATE...RETURNING as per
> previous suggestions. Then you can fetch pkey, ctid, or whatever you
> need.
I happen to think UPDATE RETURNING is one of the coolest things since sliced
bread, but that's because it saved my ass once in my last job.
I wonder whether the ui tools need anything more low level than that. In
general sticking their grubby fingers in the query the user entered seems
wrong and they would have to tack on a RETURNING clause. Though I can't really
see it failing in this particular instance.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-07 05:06:23 | Re: [GENERAL] 8.1, OID's and plpgsql |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-12-07 04:47:25 | Re: [Freegis-list] Re: [GENERAL] Map of Postgresql Users |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-07 05:06:23 | Re: [GENERAL] 8.1, OID's and plpgsql |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-12-07 04:37:56 | Re: Upcoming PG re-releases |