| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
| Date: | 2014-09-02 16:45:01 |
| Message-ID: | 20140902164501.GH19338@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 04:24:11PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-09-02 10:21:50 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> writes:
> > > For example:
> >
> > > UPDATE foo WHERE bar = 1; -- must affect exactly one row
> > > PERFORM UPDATE foo WHERE bar = 1; -- can affect any number of rows
> >
> > FWIW, I agree with the position that this would be a completely wrong
> > thing to do. UPDATE should work like it does in plain SQL. If you want
> > a restriction to "exactly one row", that needs to be a modifier.
> >
> > I take no position on how the modifier should be spelled, though.
>
> Personally I think
> ONE ROW UPDATE ...
> reads nicely and SQL-ish. But it's not very expandable to other numbers.
SINGLETON UPDATE ...?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-09-02 16:48:23 | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
| Previous Message | Álvaro Hernández Tortosa | 2014-09-02 16:42:28 | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |