On Sat, Apr 26, 2025, at 05:10, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joel Jacobson" writes:
>> For years, I've felt we could benefit from introducing convenience syntax to
>> explicitly require that exactly one row is affected by a query, something
>> which
>> currently requires using a somewhat cumbersome work
"Joel Jacobson" writes:
> For years, I've felt we could benefit from introducing convenience syntax to
> explicitly require that exactly one row is affected by a query, something
> which
> currently requires using a somewhat cumbersome workaround:
> - Using `... INTO STRICT ...` for `SELECT`,
>
On Sat, Apr 26, 2025, at 06:44, Tom Lane wrote:
> This is a rather delayed response to the discussion of bug
> #18693 [1], in which I wrote:
...
> which is pretty bogus because the record *does* have a field
> named "strict". The actual problem is that STRICT is a fully
> reserved PL/pgSQL keyword
This is a rather delayed response to the discussion of bug
#18693 [1], in which I wrote:
> (It's kind of annoying that "strict" has to be double-quoted
> in the RAISE NOTICE, especially since you get a rather misleading
> error if it isn't. But that seems like a different discussion.)
As an exam
