Re: new RETURNING clause and Pg.pm

From: "Brandon Metcalf" <bmetcalf(at)nortel(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: new RETURNING clause and Pg.pm
Date: 2008-06-26 18:17:36
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.58L.0806261316470.9186@cash.us.nortel.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

b == bmetcalf(at)cash(dot)us(dot)nortel(dot)com writes:

b> t == tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us writes:

b> t> "Brandon Metcalf" <bmetcalf(at)nortel(dot)com> writes:
b> t> > I just upgraded to 8.3.3 and taking advantage of the RETURNING clause
b> t> > which is really cool. I've found that with Pg.pm $r->resultStatus
b> t> > returns the integer "2" when the RETURNING clause is used on an
b> t> > insert.

b> t> > Of course, without using RETURNING the status is the constant
b> t> > PGRES_COMMAND_OK.

b> t> Sounds to me like a bug in Pg.pm --- it's probably not expecting
b> t> a result to come back from an INSERT. You oughta nag its author
b> t> about that.

b> I'll look through the Pg.pm code and see what I can find.

My mistake. The constant that gets returned is PGRES_TUPLES_OK which
is what I would expect. This corresponds to 2.

--
Brandon

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Phillip Mills 2008-06-26 19:24:41 Partial Index Too Literal?
Previous Message Ryan VanMiddlesworth 2008-06-26 17:54:44 Query with varchar not using functional index