Re: COPY (INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE .. RETURNING ..)

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>
Cc: Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: COPY (INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE .. RETURNING ..)
Date: 2015-11-19 18:39:22
Message-ID: CAB7nPqRRY4rtYM1sxs1OHNt4bq_p6+AfNsgOHVEt4YMjt=g7vA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> wrote:
> Of course, something might break if we added a new statement type which
> supported RETURNING, but I'm really not worried about that. I'm not dead
> set against adding some Assert(IsA()) calls here, but I don't see the point.

gram.y has a long comment before select_no_parens regarding why we
shouldn't do it this way, did you notice it? I haven't crafted yet a
backward incompatible query with your patch yet, but something smells
fishy here.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2015-11-19 18:45:31 Re: proposal: LISTEN *
Previous Message Tom Lane 2015-11-19 16:58:40 Re: pgbench unusable after crash during pgbench