Обсуждение: INSERT doc discrepancy

Kristo Kaiv wrote:
> INSERT INTO table [ ( column [, ...] ) ]
>     { DEFAULT VALUES | VALUES ( { expression | DEFAULT } [, ...] ) [, ...]
> | query }
>     [ RETURNING * | output_expression [ AS output_name ] [, ...] ]
>
> but it seems if i want to return the result into a record i have to use it
> with INTO clause in the end:
>
>         INSERT INTO tablename (
>              a
>             ,b
>             ,c
>         ) VALUES (
>              in_a
>             ,in_b
>             ,in_c
>         ) RETURNING * INTO _r;

Where's the discrepancy?  INTO is not supported in the RETURNING clause.

... thinks for a while ...

Ah, you are using it in plpgsql!  OK, but the explanation to the
discrepancy is that the second INTO is not part of the SQL sentence;
it's plpgsql only, and is parsed by its internal parser, so not really
part of the SQL grammar.

--
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Kristo Kaiv wrote:
>> but it seems if i want to return the result into a record i have to use it
>> with INTO clause in the end:

> Ah, you are using it in plpgsql!  OK, but the explanation to the
> discrepancy is that the second INTO is not part of the SQL sentence;
> it's plpgsql only, and is parsed by its internal parser, so not really
> part of the SQL grammar.

And, in fact, the plpgsql documentation does show this usage (section
38.5.3 in devel docs, but I think the numbering has changed since 8.2).

            regards, tom lane