Re: plpgsql and INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE RETURNING

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: plpgsql and INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE RETURNING
Date: 2006-08-14 23:56:09
Message-ID: 26553.1155599769@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> writes:
> 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).

It's not. I thought about it for a bit but there are some nasty gotchas
if the planner decides it needs to rescan the subquery multiple times.
I'd say that's something to leave for 8.3 ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message andrew 2006-08-15 00:14:24 Re: domains code query
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-08-14 23:50:04 Re: domains code query