| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Steve Howe <howe(at)carcass(dot)dhs(dot)org> |
| 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 03:52:46 |
| Message-ID: | 200209090352.g893qkF02693@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Steve Howe wrote:
> BM> We would return 0 for oid and an insert count, just like INSERT INTO ...
> BM> SELECT. How is that weird?
> It's not weird, or as weird as the other proposal which is retrieving
> the last inserted OID number. If we can return some information for
> the client, why not doing it ? :-)
Well, we don't return an OID from a random row when we do INSERT INTO
... SELECT (and no one has complained about it) so I can't see why we
would return an OID there.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2002-09-09 04:53:41 | Re: Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple |
| Previous Message | Steve Howe | 2002-09-09 03:46:56 | Re: Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple count |