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 12:17:24
Message-ID: CAB7nPqSAfK4YH7_fx5aYo=UyHcSeWkfAYamz8SCGAH_X-CbYvQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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