| From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Review of Writeable CTE Patch |
| Date: | 2010-02-03 16:04:57 |
| Message-ID: | 4B699EA9.4040200@cs.helsinki.fi |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2010-02-03 16:09 UTC+2, Robert Haas wrote:
> Why can't we complain about the actual SQL statement the user issued?
> Like, say:
>
> INSERT requires RETURNING when used within a referenced CTE
The SELECT equivalent of this query looks like this:
=> with recursive t as (select * from t) values(true);
ERROR: recursive query "t" does not have the form non-recursive-term
UNION [ALL] recursive-term
but I didn't want to throw people off to think that they can use
INSERT/UPDATE/RETURNING in a RECURSIVE CTE, just to get complaints about
syntax error.
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-02-03 16:08:19 | Re: Review of Writeable CTE Patch |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-03 15:58:41 | Re: Review of Writeable CTE Patch |