Re: Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.44.0209091934310.18819-100000@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple count from complex commands [return]" issue (Steve Howe <howe@carcass.dhs.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple count from complex commands [return]" issue
Re: Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Steve Howe writes: > Here are the proposals for solutioning the "Return proper effected > tuple count from complex commands [return]" issue as seen on TODO. > > Any comments ?... This is obviously open to voting and discussion. We don't have a whole lot of freedom in this; this area is covered by the SQL standard. The major premise in the standard's point of view is that views are supposed to be transparent. That is, if SELECT * FROM my_view WHERE condition; return N rows, then a subsequently executed UPDATE my_view SET ... WHERE condition; returns an update count of N, no matter what happens behind the scenes. I don't think this matches Tom Lane's view exactly, but it's a lot closer than your proposal. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: