| From: | Thom Brown <thombrown(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "pdovera(at)tiscali(dot)it" <pdovera(at)tiscali(dot)it> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT RETURNING and partitioning |
| Date: | 2010-07-20 14:51:44 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTileHFSifQq3UKDPKqu-5nAldmZyhGoh6TL4g5db@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 20 July 2010 14:42, pdovera(at)tiscali(dot)it <pdovera(at)tiscali(dot)it> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've noticed that an insert command with returning clause returns an
> empty result set if done on a master table. Instead the same insert
> with returning on partitioned tables works correctly.
>
> Do you know if it's a normal action? I'm doing something wrong?
>
> The partitioning works correctly with all kind of SQL commands:
> select, delete, update and "normal" insert.
>
> I've read the manual and it reports this:
> "The optional RETURNING clause causes INSERT to compute and return
> value(s) based on each row actually inserted. This is primarily useful
> for obtaining values that were supplied by defaults, such as a serial
> sequence number. However, any expression using the table's columns is
> allowed. The syntax of the RETURNING list is identical to that of the
> output list of SELECT."
>
> but nothing about partitioning ...
>
> Regards,
> Paolo
>
> PS: I'm using PostgreSQL 8.3.4 on x86 Linux box
>
>
Yes, that should work even on partitioned tables. Could you provide
some sample SQL you're using?
Thom
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alban Hertroys | 2010-07-20 15:35:03 | Re: Need a better way to do my constraints |
| Previous Message | Gauthier, Dave | 2010-07-20 14:19:09 | Need a better way to do my constraints |