On 09/02/2014 04:32 PM, Joel Jacobson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:
>> In the mailing list thread that you linked there, Tom suggested using
>> "STRICT UPDATE ..." to mean that updating 0 or >1 rows is an error
>> (http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/16397.1356106923@sss.pgh.pa.us). What
>> happened to that proposal?
>
> From the STRICT mail thread, this was the last post:
>
>> "Marko Tiikkaja" <marko@joh.to> writes:
>>> If I'm counting correctly, we have four votes for this patch and two votes
>>> against it.
>>> Any other opinions?
>>
>> FWIW, I share Peter's poor opinion of this syntax. I can see the
>> appeal of not having to write an explicit check of the rowcount
>> afterwards, but that appeal is greatly weakened by the strange syntax.
>> (IOW, if you were counting me as a + vote, that was only a vote for
>> the concept --- on reflection I don't much like this implementation.)
>> regards, tom lane
>
> I think it's much better to make it the default behaviour in plpgsql2
> than to add a new syntax to plpgsql,
> because then we don't have to argue what to call the keyword or where to put it.
Then you'll have to argue what the *other* syntax should look like. And
not everyone agrees on the default either, see Kevin's email. Designing
a new language is going to be an uphill battle, even more so than
enhancing current plpgsql.
- Heikki