From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Using results from INSERT ... RETURNING |
Date: | 2009-10-08 19:40:23 |
Message-ID: | 20091008194022.GG5510@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas escribió:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > I notice also that the patch has chosen to represent Dml in XML/JSON
> > explain output as Node Type = Dml with an entirely new attribute
> > Operation to indicate Insert/Update/Delete. Do we really want to
> > go there? Adding single-purpose attributes doesn't seem like a great
> > idea.
>
> Well, I was the one who suggested doing it that way, so you can blame
> me for that, but it is consistent with how we've handled other things,
> like setops and jointypes: the details get moved to another tag so as
> to avoid an explosive growth in the number of node types that clients
> must be prepared for.
Perhaps how a join is implemented in a plan can be considered a
"detail", but I don't think the same holds true for insert vs. update.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-08 19:53:34 | Re: Using results from INSERT ... RETURNING |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-10-08 19:37:21 | Re: Using results from INSERT ... RETURNING |