Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Karol Trzcionka <karlikt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax
Date: 2013-05-02 17:40:59
Message-ID: 28565.1367516459@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 06:28:53PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
>> prior/after? Both are unreserved keywords atm and it seems far less
>> likely to have conflicts than new/old.

> BEFORE/AFTER seems more logical to me.

Works for me.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Karol Trzcionka 2013-05-02 17:53:46 Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2013-05-02 17:14:17 Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax