From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Return command tag 'REPLACE X' for CREATE OR REPLACE statements. |
Date: | 2011-01-14 14:30:00 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTikxWrN2nxdrrtMY8kNFzbnnFeYiwrB7ff0Q=-cE@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of vie ene 14 08:40:07 -0300 2011:
>
>> Also, I don't really like the way this spreads knowledge of the
>> completionTag out all over the backend. I think it would be better to
>> follow the existing model used by the COPY and COMMIT commands,
>> whereby the return value indicates what happened and
>> standard_ProcessUtility() uses that to set the command tag.
>
> Yeah, that looks ugly. However it's already ugly elsewhere: for example
> see PerformPortalFetch. I am not sure if it should be this patch's
> responsability to clean that stuff up. (Maybe we should decree that at
> least this patch shouldn't make the situation worse.)
Agreed: it's not the patch's job to clean it up, but it shouldn't make
the situation worse.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-01-14 14:44:31 | Re: Database file copy |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-01-14 14:26:05 | Re: Database file copy |