| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "masondeanm(at)aol(dot)com" <masondeanm(at)aol(dot)com>, "pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT ... RETURNING documentation |
| Date: | 2024-07-25 21:27:08 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwYZJykuHnbc3d_Ks2mQyca6cB0JeoWVHLsBPphgNbXgCQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Thursday, July 25, 2024, PG Doc comments form <noreply(at)postgresql(dot)org>
wrote:
> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
>
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/sql-insert.html
> Description:
>
> The grammar
> [ RETURNING * | output_expression [ [ AS ] output_name ] [, ...] ]
> seems wrong to me. I appears to say it could be either
> RETURNING *
> or
> output_expression [ [ AS ] output_name ] [, ...]
>
> but I believe the RETURNING is always required.
>
Yes, the word returning makes it the returning clause. This should be
written:
[ Returning { * | output_expression [ [ AS ] output_name ] } [, …] ]
Here and on the update and delete pages.
Related, select says:
[ * | expression [ [ AS ] output_name ] [, …] ]
Shouldn’t this also be:
[ { * | expression [ [ AS ] output_name ] } [, …] ]
I know we do tend to let the reader infer exactly what the [, …] part
refers to but in this case it seems reasonably ambiguous. I just think
most everyone learns how * works separately so it rarely comes up since no
one reads the syntax for it.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-07-25 21:42:03 | Re: INSERT ... RETURNING documentation |
| Previous Message | PG Doc comments form | 2024-07-25 20:35:01 | INSERT ... RETURNING documentation |