From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> |
Subject: | Re: Command Triggers, patch v11 |
Date: | 2012-03-19 17:06:25 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZKTfj3EMKow42mwt3zbfPN-V-bOJsExJ3avnezEceQkg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On sön, 2012-03-18 at 21:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> If we were going to change the output at all, I would vote for "CREATE
>> TABLE nnnn" so as to preserve the rowcount functionality. Keep in
>> mind though that this would force client-side changes, for instance in
>> libpq's PQcmdTuples(). Fixing that one routine isn't so painful, but
>> what of other client-side libraries, not to mention applications?
>
> Doesn't seem worth it to me. At least, "SELECT nnnn" makes some sense:
> nnnn rows were selected. "CREATE TABLE nnnn" means what? nnnn tables
> were created?
>
> What might make sense is to delegate this additional information to
> separate fields in a future protocol revision.
I think that we would not have bothered to add the row count to the
command tag output for SELECT unless it were useful. It seems to be
*more* useful for CTAS than for SELECT; after all, SELECT also returns
the actual rows.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marco Nenciarini | 2012-03-19 17:41:39 | Re: [PATCH] Support for foreign keys with arrays |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-03-19 16:53:21 | Re: Command Triggers, patch v11 |