| 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 12:17:24 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSAfK4YH7_fx5aYo=UyHcSeWkfAYamz8SCGAH_X-CbYvQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> This was discussed in 2010 when CTEs got the same treatment, and I agree
> with what was decided back then. If someone needs to make PreparableStmt
> different from what COPY and CTEs support, we can split them up. But
> they're completely identical after this patch, so splitting them up right
> now is somewhat pointless.
> Further, if someone's going to add new stuff to PreparableStmt, she should
> probably think about whether it would make sense to add it to COPY and CTEs
> from day one, too, and in that case not splitting them up is actually a win.
Personally, I would take it on the safe side and actually update it.
If someone were to add a new node type in PreparableStmt I am pretty
sure that we are going to forget to update the COPY part, leading us
to unwelcome bugs. And that would not be cool.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thom Brown | 2015-11-19 12:19:23 | Re: Error with index on unlogged table |
| Previous Message | Kouhei Kaigai | 2015-11-19 11:39:24 | Re: Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual |