On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 04:24:11PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-09-02 10:21:50 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Marko Tiikkaja <marko@joh.to> writes:
> > > For example:
> >
> > > UPDATE foo WHERE bar = 1; -- must affect exactly one row
> > > PERFORM UPDATE foo WHERE bar = 1; -- can affect any number of rows
> >
> > FWIW, I agree with the position that this would be a completely wrong
> > thing to do. UPDATE should work like it does in plain SQL. If you want
> > a restriction to "exactly one row", that needs to be a modifier.
> >
> > I take no position on how the modifier should be spelled, though.
>
> Personally I think
> ONE ROW UPDATE ...
> reads nicely and SQL-ish. But it's not very expandable to other numbers.
SINGLETON UPDATE ...?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +