| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: GET DIAGNOSTICS (was Re: Open 7.1 items) |
| Date: | 2001-02-20 15:34:12 |
| Message-ID: | 12526.982683252@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> I just committed changes that make it RESULT_OID, but if you like
> INSERTED_OID better, we could change it...
>>
>> I think I like RESULT_OID because the standard uses RESULT.
> RESULT* is used for SELECT statements, but RESULT_OID is for INSERT
> commands. It sounds a bit like that results get oids assigned. Maybe.
I don't have a strong feeling either way, but it occurred to me that
RESULT_OID might be better since it could be used for more purposes,
eg, returning a last-affected-row OID for UPDATE or DELETE. Not that
we do that now, but we wouldn't have to chew up additional keywords
if we wanted to start doing it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-02-20 15:38:20 | Re: GET DIAGNOSTICS (was Re: Open 7.1 items) |
| Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2001-02-20 14:43:44 | Re: beta5 ... |