Re: Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I liked option #2. I don't think the _last_ query in a rule should have
> any special handling.
>
> So, to summarize #2, we have:
>
> if no INSTEAD,
> return value of original command
>
> if INSTEAD,
> return tag of original command
> return sum of all affected rows with the same tag
> return OID if all INSERTs in the rule insert only one row, else zero
>

How about:

if no INSTEAD,
return value of original command

if INSTEAD,
return tag MUTATED
return sum of sum of tuple counts of all replacement commands
return OID if sum of all replacement INSERTs in the rule inserted
only one row, else zero

This is basically Tom's proposal, but substituting MUTATED for the
original command tag name acknowledges that the original command was not
executed unchanged. It also serves as a warning that the affected
tuple count is from one or more substitute operations, not the original
command.

> I don't think we should add tuple counts from different commands, i.e.
> adding UPDATE and DELETE counts just yeilds a totally meaningless
> number.

I don't know about that. The number of "rows affected" is indeed this
number. It's just that they were not all affected in the same way.

> I don't think there is any need/desire to add additional API routines to
> handle multiple return values.

Agreed.

>
> Can I get some votes on this? We have one user very determined to get a
> fix, and the TODO.detail file has another user who really wants a fix.

+1 for the version above ;-)

Joe