From: | Steve Howe <howe(at)carcass(dot)dhs(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple count |
Date: | 2002-09-09 03:37:39 |
Message-ID: | 19285433937.20020909003739@carcass.dhs.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Bruce,
Monday, September 9, 2002, 12:22:26 AM, you wrote:
BM> Steve Howe wrote:
>> JC> return OID if sum of all replacement INSERTs in the rule inserted
>> JC> only one row, else zero
>> I don't agree with this one since it would lead us to a meaningless
>> information... what would be the number retrieved ? Not an OID, nor
>> nothing.
BM> I don't understand this objection.
I misunderstood Joe's statement into thinking we wanted to sum the
OIDs for all INSERT commands applied :)
Please ignore this.
But now that I read it again, I would prefer having at least one OID
for the last inserted row. With this info, I would be able to refresh
my client dataset to reflect the new inserted rows.
I see returning 0 if multiple INSERT commands issued is as weird as
returning some OID if multiple INSERT commands issued. But the second
options is usable, while the first one is useless... So I would prefer
retrieving the last inserted OID.
-------------
Best regards,
Steve Howe mailto:howe(at)carcass(dot)dhs(dot)org
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-09-09 03:39:20 | Re: Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-09-09 03:36:38 | Re: Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple count |