On 1/13/14, 7:06 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 01/13/2014 04:20 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 1/13/14, 5:57 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
I *really* don't want to go through all my old code to find places where
I used SELECT ... INTO just to pop off the first row, and ignored the
rest. I doubt anyone else does, either.
Do you regularly have use cases where you actually want just one RANDOM
row? I suspect the far more likely scenario is that people write code
assuming they'll get only one row and they'll end up with extremely hard
to trace bugs if that assumption is ever wrong.
Regularly? No. But I've seen it, especially as part of a "does this
query return any rows?" test. That's not the best way to test that, but
that doesn't stop a lot of people doing it.
Right, and I certainly don't want to force anyone to rewrite all their code. But I'd
certainly like a safer default so people don't mistakenly go the "multiple rows is
OK" route without doing so very intentionally.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect j...@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
