On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Marko Tiikkaja <ma...@joh.to> wrote: > When I've played around with the idea of fixing PL/PgSQL in my head, what I > had in mind is that UPDATE and DELETE not affecting exactly one row raises > an exception, unless PERFORM is used. PERFORM would set a special variable > (e.g. ROW_COUNT) which can be consulted after the operation. > > For example: > > UPDATE foo WHERE bar = 1; -- must affect exactly one row > PERFORM UPDATE foo WHERE bar = 1; -- can affect any number of rows > IF row_count > 1 THEN > RAISE EXCEPTION 'oh no'; > END IF; > > This, obviously, requires us to get rid of the requirement for PERFORM > today, which I see as a win as well.
I don't like rebranding the PERFORM command, as that would require all existing code with PERFORM commands to be changed. That also still requires 4 rows for some all other use-cases than 1 row affected, if all you want is a general error in case your expectations of rows affected were not met. I think with a single line of UPDATE command, you should be forced to indicate you want something else than 1 row affected, and if your expectations are not met, you should get the error on the UPDATE command, not having to check a variable on the next line of code. I therefore think, since we don't have to be 100% backwards compatible, it's OK and a good thing to introduce some new keyword to UPDATE (and DELETE). I have no ideas on what keyword(s) though. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
