Обсуждение: Any reason not to return row_count in cursor of plpgsql?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка

Any reason not to return row_count in cursor of plpgsql?

От
laser
Дата:
hi all,
I read the code that it seems easy for the cursor in plpgsql to return 
ROW_COUNT afterMOVE LAST etc. The SPI_processed variable already there, but didn't put 
it into estatestructure, any reason for that?
thanks and best regards
-laser


Re: Any reason not to return row_count in cursor of plpgsql?

От
Bruce Momjian
Дата:
laser wrote:
> hi all,
> 
>  I read the code that it seems easy for the cursor in plpgsql to return 
> ROW_COUNT after
>  MOVE LAST etc. The SPI_processed variable already there, but didn't put 
> it into estate
>  structure, any reason for that?

[ Sorry for the delay.]

Would some tests how Oracle behaves in this case?

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +


Re: Any reason not to return row_count in cursor of plpgsql?

От
Bruce Momjian
Дата:
laser wrote:
> hi all,
> 
>  I read the code that it seems easy for the cursor in plpgsql to return 
> ROW_COUNT after
>  MOVE LAST etc. The SPI_processed variable already there, but didn't put 
> it into estate
>  structure, any reason for that?
> 
>  thanks and best regards

Sorry, we have decided against this change because it might break
existing applications.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +


Re: Any reason not to return row_count in cursor of plpgsql?

От
Andrew Gierth
Дата:
>>>>> "Bruce" == Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>> hi all,>> >> I read the code that it seems easy for the cursor in plpgsql to>> return ROW_COUNT after MOVE LAST etc.
TheSPI_processed variable>> already there, but didn't put it into estate structure, any reason>> for that?>> >> thanks
andbest regards
 
Bruce> Sorry, we have decided against this change because it mightBruce> break existing applications.

As they say on wikipedia, [citation needed]

GET DIAGNOSTICS ROW_COUNT is documented as working for all commands;
if it doesn't work for MOVE (and FETCH), that's a bug. It might be one
that's not appropriate to backpatch, but that's no excuse for not
fixing it in a new release.

It's especially egregious in that MOVE _does_ set FOUND.

diff -c -r1.235 pl_exec.c
*** pl_exec.c    23 Feb 2009 10:03:22 -0000    1.235
--- pl_exec.c    27 Mar 2009 10:44:08 -0000
***************
*** 3368,3373 ****
--- 3368,3375 ----         exec_set_found(estate, n != 0);     } 
+     estate->eval_processed = n;
+      return PLPGSQL_RC_OK; } 
-- 
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)


Re: Any reason not to return row_count in cursor of plpgsql?

От
Tom Lane
Дата:
Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk> writes:
> GET DIAGNOSTICS ROW_COUNT is documented as working for all commands;
> if it doesn't work for MOVE (and FETCH), that's a bug.

Or a documentation problem.  I don't see any claim that it works for
"all commands" anyway.
        regards, tom lane


Re: Any reason not to return row_count in cursor of plpgsql?

От
Andrew Gierth
Дата:
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk> writes:>> GET DIAGNOSTICS ROW_COUNT is documented as working for all
commands;>>if it doesn't work for MOVE (and FETCH), that's a bug.
 
Tom> Or a documentation problem.  I don't see any claim that it works forTom> "all commands" anyway.

"This command allows retrieval of system status indicators. Each item
is a key word identifying a state value to be assigned to the
specified variable (which should be of the right data type to receive
it). The currently available status items are ROW_COUNT, the number of
rows processed by the last SQL command sent down to the SQL engine,
and RESULT_OID, the OID of the last row inserted by the most recent
SQL command. Note that RESULT_OID is only useful after an INSERT
command into a table containing OIDs."

The idea that fetch/move should _intentionally_ not set ROW_COUNT is
beyond ludicrous.

-- 
Andrew.


Re: Any reason not to return row_count in cursor of plpgsql?

От
David Fetter
Дата:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 08:59:29PM +0000, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> >>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> 
>  > Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk> writes:
>  >> GET DIAGNOSTICS ROW_COUNT is documented as working for all commands;
>  >> if it doesn't work for MOVE (and FETCH), that's a bug.
> 
>  Tom> Or a documentation problem.  I don't see any claim that it works for
>  Tom> "all commands" anyway.
> 
> "This command allows retrieval of system status indicators. Each item
> is a key word identifying a state value to be assigned to the
> specified variable (which should be of the right data type to receive
> it). The currently available status items are ROW_COUNT, the number of
> rows processed by the last SQL command sent down to the SQL engine,
> and RESULT_OID, the OID of the last row inserted by the most recent
> SQL command. Note that RESULT_OID is only useful after an INSERT
> command into a table containing OIDs."
> 
> The idea that fetch/move should _intentionally_ not set ROW_COUNT is
> beyond ludicrous.

It's a flat-out bug not to have FETCH/MOVE set this.

Cheers,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate


Re: Any reason not to return row_count in cursor of plpgsql?

От
Bruce Momjian
Дата:
Thanks, patch applied.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Andrew Gierth wrote:
> >>>>> "Bruce" == Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> 
>  >> hi all,
>  >> 
>  >> I read the code that it seems easy for the cursor in plpgsql to
>  >> return ROW_COUNT after MOVE LAST etc. The SPI_processed variable
>  >> already there, but didn't put it into estate structure, any reason
>  >> for that?
>  >> 
>  >> thanks and best regards
> 
>  Bruce> Sorry, we have decided against this change because it might
>  Bruce> break existing applications.
> 
> As they say on wikipedia, [citation needed]
> 
> GET DIAGNOSTICS ROW_COUNT is documented as working for all commands;
> if it doesn't work for MOVE (and FETCH), that's a bug. It might be one
> that's not appropriate to backpatch, but that's no excuse for not
> fixing it in a new release.
> 
> It's especially egregious in that MOVE _does_ set FOUND.
> 
> diff -c -r1.235 pl_exec.c
> *** pl_exec.c    23 Feb 2009 10:03:22 -0000    1.235
> --- pl_exec.c    27 Mar 2009 10:44:08 -0000
> ***************
> *** 3368,3373 ****
> --- 3368,3375 ----
>           exec_set_found(estate, n != 0);
>       }
>   
> +     estate->eval_processed = n;
> + 
>       return PLPGSQL_RC_OK;
>   }
>   
> -- 
> Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +