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
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 |