Re: Proposal: RETURNING primary_key()

From: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: "Igal (at) Lucee(dot)org" <igal(at)lucee(dot)org>
Cc: Ian Barwick <ian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: RETURNING primary_key()
Date: 2016-03-08 04:02:17
Message-ID: CAMsr+YHEOnhYr8OE-vZ6cCErQ5-ucZk4mPW-8AjJTfDR+hzNNA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 8 March 2016 at 08:56, Igal @ Lucee.org <igal(at)lucee(dot)org> wrote:

>
> I'm not sure why it was not accepted at the end?

The biggest issue, though it might not be clear from that thread, is that
what exactly it means to "return generated keys" is poorly defined by JDBC,
and not necessarily the same thing as "return the PRIMARY KEY".

Should we return the DEFAULT on a UNIQUE column, for example?

IMO other vendors' drivers should be tested for behaviour in a variety of
cases. Ideally the JDBC test suite too. Then specify the exact behaviour of
what we need to satisfy the JDBC driver's requirements and anything else
that might be related.

--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2016-03-08 04:08:50 Re: How can we expand PostgreSQL ecosystem?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-03-08 04:01:40 Re: Optimizer questions