On 09/02/2014 04:32 PM, Joel Jacobson wrote:
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote:
In the mailing list thread that you linked there, Tom suggested using
"STRICT UPDATE ..." to mean that updating 0 or >1 rows is an error
(http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/16397.1356106...@sss.pgh.pa.us). What
happened to that proposal?
From the STRICT mail thread, this was the last post:
"Marko Tiikkaja" <ma...@joh.to> writes:
If I'm counting correctly, we have four votes for this patch and two votes
against it.
Any other opinions?
FWIW, I share Peter's poor opinion of this syntax. I can see the
appeal of not having to write an explicit check of the rowcount
afterwards, but that appeal is greatly weakened by the strange syntax.
(IOW, if you were counting me as a + vote, that was only a vote for
the concept --- on reflection I don't much like this implementation.)
regards, tom lane
I think it's much better to make it the default behaviour in plpgsql2
than to add a new syntax to plpgsql,
because then we don't have to argue what to call the keyword or where to put it.
Then you'll have to argue what the *other* syntax should look like. And
not everyone agrees on the default either, see Kevin's email. Designing
a new language is going to be an uphill battle, even more so than
enhancing current plpgsql.
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
