Writeable CTEs
in [PgSql]
|
Prev: We no longer have a fallback for machines withoutworking int64
Next: pgsql: Get rid of the need for manualmaintenance of the initial
From: Robert Haas on 5 Jan 2010 16:46 On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(a)agliodbs.com> wrote: > On 1/5/10 9:45 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: >> On 2010-01-05 19:21 +0200, Greg Stark wrote: >>> with t as (delete from foo returning *) >>> select * from t where x=? >>> >>> applications will almost certainly expect the number to match the >>> actual number of rows returned and may well misbehave if they don't. >> >> I probably wasn't clear about the actual problem in the original post. >> The problem only affects INSERT, UDPATE and DELETE where you are >> actually counting affected rows (i.e. PQcmdTuples(), not PQntuples()) so >> the this example would work as expected. > > I don't think there is an "as expected" for this situation; people won't > know what to expect. So what do we think is resonable? The current > behavior, which reports the total count of rows expected, works for me. I agree with Tom's statement upthread that we should only count the rows affected by the top-level query. Anything else seems extremely counter-intuitive. ....Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Josh Berkus on 5 Jan 2010 16:58
> I agree with Tom's statement upthread that we should only count the > rows affected by the top-level query. Anything else seems extremely > counter-intuitive. I'm ok with that. I don't think there is any kind of intuitive behavior in this situation, and we just need to pick something and document it. --Josh -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |