Re: "RETURNING PRIMARY KEY" syntax extension

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Greg Stark
Тема Re: "RETURNING PRIMARY KEY" syntax extension
Дата
Msg-id CAM-w4HO5tVe+ESd0JxoiEj3x4tMGJQwf_gRjWWDEy-_QwNmAkA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: "RETURNING PRIMARY KEY" syntax extension  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: "RETURNING PRIMARY KEY" syntax extension  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> TBH, I thought that RETURNING PRIMARY KEY was already fairly iffy
> in that the application would have little idea what it was getting back.
> IF EXISTS would make it so spongy as to be useless, IMO.

Seems easy enough to look at the count of columns in the result set.
But it seems like noise words -- if you don't put IF EXISTS then
surely you'll get the same behaviour anyways, no?

Fwiw when I wrote ORM-like layers I used to describe the output of the
query, including sometimes issuing WHERE 1<>0 queries and looking at
the output column types when I needed that before executing the query.
Using table metadata would have required a much more in depth
understanding of how the database worked and also wouldn't handle
expressions, joins, set operations, etc.

-- 
greg



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Greg Stark
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: tweaking NTUP_PER_BUCKET
Следующее
От: Andrew Gierth
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Aggregate function API versus grouping sets