Re: PL/pgSQL 2

From: Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PL/pgSQL 2
Date: 2014-09-02 16:12:13
Message-ID: CAASwCXc6kY9djLXbaxORKiVXuC5mOZxz8VrXkGKZhgVkSgOOMQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
> I think that would actually be a good way to enforce the rule that an UPDATE
> only updates a single row. Just put a "ASSERT ROW_COUNT=1;" after the
> update.

So instead of one line of code, I would need to write two lines of
code at almost *all* places where a currently have an UPDATE. :-(
In that case, I think "RETURNING TRUE INTO STRICT _OK" is less ugly.

I think the problem with my perspective is my ambitions. I use
PL/pgSQL not as a secondary language, but it's my primary language for
developing applications.
For me, updating a row, is like setting a variable in a normal language.
No normal language would require two rows to set a variable.
It would be like having to do:
my $var = 10;
die unless $var == 10;
in Perl to set a variable.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joel Jacobson 2014-09-02 16:20:42 Re: PL/pgSQL 2
Previous Message Álvaro Hernández Tortosa 2014-09-02 16:11:26 Re: PL/pgSQL 2