| From: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Karol Trzcionka <karlikt(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax |
| Date: | 2013-05-02 18:44:57 |
| Message-ID: | F056BA52-8679-4C6C-B502-EB99B410C59B@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Sent from my iPad
On 03-May-2013, at 0:07, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 01:40:59PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
>>> On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 06:28:53PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
>>>> prior/after? Both are unreserved keywords atm and it seems far less
>>>> likely to have conflicts than new/old.
>>
>>> BEFORE/AFTER seems more logical to me.
>>
>> Works for me.
>>
>> regards, tom lane
>
> Maybe we can make BEFORE and AFTER implied aliases rather than
> keywords. What say?
>
>
I agree.Overall,I like the concept.
Regards,
Atri
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-05-02 18:45:51 | Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2013-05-02 18:37:07 | Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax |