On 01/11/2014 11:42 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I recently suggested that rather than RETURNING REJECTS, we could have
> a REJECTING clause, which would see a DML statement project strictly
> the complement of what RETURNING projects in the same context. So
> perhaps you could also see what RETURNING would not have projected
> because a before row trigger returned NULL (i.e. when a before trigger
> indicates to not proceed with insertion). That is certainly more
> general, and so is perhaps preferable. It's also less verbose, and it
> seems less likely to matter that we'll need to make REJECTING a fully
> reserved keyword, as compared to REJECTS. (RETURNING is already a
> fully reserved keyword not described by the standard, so this makes a
> certain amount of sense to me). If nothing else, REJECTING is more
> terse than RETURNING REJECTS.
I do not entirely understand what you are proposing here. Any example
how this would look compared to your RETURNING REJECTS proposal?
--
Andreas Karlsson