Re: Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Steve Howe <howe(at)carcass(dot)dhs(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple
Date: 2002-09-09 18:41:41
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0209091934310.18819-100000@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Steve Howe writes:

> Here are the proposals for solutioning the "Return proper effected
> tuple count from complex commands [return]" issue as seen on TODO.
>
> Any comments ?... This is obviously open to voting and discussion.

We don't have a whole lot of freedom in this; this area is covered by the
SQL standard. The major premise in the standard's point of view is that
views are supposed to be transparent. That is, if

SELECT * FROM my_view WHERE condition;

return N rows, then a subsequently executed

UPDATE my_view SET ... WHERE condition;

returns an update count of N, no matter what happens behind the scenes. I
don't think this matches Tom Lane's view exactly, but it's a lot closer
than your proposal.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-09-09 18:53:56 Re: problem with new autocommit config parameter and jdbc
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2002-09-09 18:41:19 Re: SIMILAR TO