| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Steve Howe <howe(at)carcass(dot)dhs(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple |
| Date: | 2002-09-09 18:41:41 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0209091934310.18819-100000@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Steve Howe writes:
> Here are the proposals for solutioning the "Return proper effected
> tuple count from complex commands [return]" issue as seen on TODO.
>
> Any comments ?... This is obviously open to voting and discussion.
We don't have a whole lot of freedom in this; this area is covered by the
SQL standard. The major premise in the standard's point of view is that
views are supposed to be transparent. That is, if
SELECT * FROM my_view WHERE condition;
return N rows, then a subsequently executed
UPDATE my_view SET ... WHERE condition;
returns an update count of N, no matter what happens behind the scenes. I
don't think this matches Tom Lane's view exactly, but it's a lot closer
than your proposal.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-09 18:53:56 | Re: problem with new autocommit config parameter and jdbc |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-09-09 18:41:19 | Re: SIMILAR TO |