| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: plpgsql.consistent_into |
| Date: | 2014-01-14 01:06:41 |
| Message-ID: | 52D48DA1.8060107@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/13/2014 04:20 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 1/13/14, 5:57 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> I *really* don't want to go through all my old code to find places where
>> I used SELECT ... INTO just to pop off the first row, and ignored the
>> rest. I doubt anyone else does, either.
>
> Do you regularly have use cases where you actually want just one RANDOM
> row? I suspect the far more likely scenario is that people write code
> assuming they'll get only one row and they'll end up with extremely hard
> to trace bugs if that assumption is ever wrong.
Regularly? No. But I've seen it, especially as part of a "does this
query return any rows?" test. That's not the best way to test that, but
that doesn't stop a lot of people doing it.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2014-01-14 01:08:58 | Re: plpgsql.consistent_into |
| Previous Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2014-01-14 01:05:37 | Re: plpgsql.consistent_into |