On 2011-02-26 4:41 AM +0200, Tom Lane wrote:
> Marko Tiikkaja<marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi> writes:
>> One thing bothers me though: what was the reason for requiring a
>> RETURNING clause for data-modifying statements in WITH?
>
> That test was in your patch, no? I moved the code to another place
> but it's still enforcing the same thing, namely that you can't reference
> the output of an INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE that hasn't got RETURNING.
Oh, right. I misunderstood.
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja