From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>, PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Bug in PL/pgSQL GET DIAGNOSTICS? |
Date: | 2002-09-26 22:26:53 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0209261915190.1149-100000@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian writes:
> To summarize, with non-INSTEAD, we get the tag, oid, and tuple count of
> the original query. Everyone agrees on that.
>
> For non-INSTEAD, we have:
[I think this is the INSTEAD part.]
> 1) return original tag
> 2) return oid if all inserts in the rule insert only one row
> 3) return tuple count of all commands with the same tag
I think proper encapsulation would require us to simulate the original
command, hiding the fact that something else happened internally. I know
it's really hard to determine the "virtual" count of an update or delete
if the command had acted on a permament base table, but I'd rather
maintain the encapsulation of updateable views and return "unknown" in
that case.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-09-26 22:28:18 | Re: AIX compilation problems (was Re: Proposal ...) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-26 22:25:23 | Re: Reconstructing FKs in pg_dump |