| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Curt Kolovson <ckolovson(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Bug in documentation: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/spi-examples.html |
| Date: | 2023-07-18 01:22:02 |
| Message-ID: | 4114624.1689643322@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 4:53 PM Curt Kolovson <ckolovson(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> The actual results (shown below) are different than shown on this doc
>> page.
> SPI_exec sees "INSERT 0 2" as the command tag from the SQL command you
> passed and so 2 is the output of the execq function call.
> No INFO messages appear because you did not include a returning clause.
> The 1 you passed to the call is immaterial if the query you supply doesn't
> produce a result set.
I think his point is that this example does not behave as the
documentation claims. Which it does not, according to my
tests here. I find this a bit disturbing --- did we intentionally
change the behavior of SPI_exec somewhere along the line?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Curt Kolovson | 2023-07-18 01:52:34 | Re: Bug in documentation: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/spi-examples.html |
| Previous Message | jian he | 2023-07-18 00:34:24 | Re: Bug in documentation: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/spi-examples.html |