From: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Michal szymanski" <szymanskim(at)datera(dot)pl>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #4516: FOUND variable does not work after RETURN QUERY |
Date: | 2008-11-06 21:18:35 |
Message-ID: | 162867790811061318n102285b2lf4217e25c56f98df@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
2008/11/6 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> 2008/11/6 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>>> RETURN isn't one of them.
>
>> It should be enhanced - my initial proposal of return query expected
>> so return query is last statement, that isn't now. So we could add
>> this check there.
>
> Well, changing the semantics of an already-released statement carries a
> risk of breaking existing apps that aren't expecting it to change FOUND.
> So I'd want to see a pretty strong case why this is important --- not
> just that it didn't meet someone's didn't-read-the-manual expectation.
>
It's should do some problems, but I belive much less than change of
casting or tsearch2 integration. And actually it's not ortogonal.
Every not dynamic statement change FOUND variable.
regards
Pavel Stehule
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | William Davis | 2008-11-07 01:45:27 | Fwd: postgresql83 and ossp/uuid |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-11-06 18:19:31 | Re: BUG #4516: FOUND variable does not work after RETURN QUERY |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-11-06 21:26:17 | Re: [WIP] In-place upgrade |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-11-06 21:04:49 | postgres buildfarm member "dugong" |