| From: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Gavin Sherry" <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: DB2-style INS/UPD/DEL RETURNING |
| Date: | 2006-03-13 22:02:44 |
| Message-ID: | 36e682920603131402j3477ff26ye6fabd13104610c@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/13/06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Also, is the front SELECT allowed to have its own WHERE, or is it
> constrained to return exactly one row per inserted/updated/deleted row?
> If it can have a WHERE then there's a syntactic ambiguity in
> SELECT ... FROM NEW TABLE UPDATE ... WHERE ...
Yes, I believe it supports SELECT .. FROM NEW TABLE (UPDATE .. WHERE ..)
WHERE
IBM's paper, "Returning Modified Rows--SELECT Statements with Side Effects"
is here:
http://www.isys.ucl.ac.be/vldb04/eProceedings/contents/pdf/IND1P1.PDF
I'll look up more.
--
Jonah H. Harris, Database Internals Architect
EnterpriseDB Corporation
732.331.1324
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Guillaume Smet | 2006-03-13 22:40:24 | log_duration and log_statement |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-13 21:47:10 | Re: DB2-style INS/UPD/DEL RETURNING |