On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 12:06:23AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Rather than hard-wiring a special case for any of these things, I'd much > >> rather see us implement INSERT...RETURNING and UPDATE...RETURNING as per > >> previous suggestions. > > > I wonder whether the ui tools need anything more low level than that. In > > general sticking their grubby fingers in the query the user entered seems > > wrong and they would have to tack on a RETURNING clause. > > That was mentioned before as a possible objection, but I'm not sure that > I buy it. The argument seems to be that a client-side driver would > understand the query and table structure well enough to know what to do > with a returned pkey value, but not well enough to understand how to > tack on a RETURNING clause to request that value. This seems a bit > bogus. > > There may be some point in implementing a protocol-level equivalent of > RETURNING just to reduce the overhead on both sides, but I think we > ought to get the RETURNING functionality in place first and then worry > about that...
Along those lines, I don't see anything on the TODO list about this... -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
