| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: plpgsql and INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE RETURNING |
| Date: | 2006-08-14 15:19:58 |
| Message-ID: | 20060814151958.GC27928@pervasive.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 03:54:18PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> which is that you can use aggregate functions in the RETURNING list and
> get a single-row result that is aggregated across all affected rows.
> It's too late to consider implementing that for 8.2, I fear, but I think
> maybe we should put it on the TODO list for later.
Aggregates sound interesting, though I'm not sure how useful they'd
actually be. I think something like
FOR v_row IN (UPDATE ... RETURNING ...)
would be a lot more useful (if it's not already in the patch).
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-08-14 15:27:43 | Re: problem with volatile functions in subselects ? |
| Previous Message | dror | 2006-08-14 14:45:23 | [Patch] - Fix for bug #2558, InitDB failed to run on windows 2003 |