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
> >
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 anythi
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. Then you can fetch pkey, ctid, or whatever you
> need.
I happen to think UPDATE RETU
Thanks Jim.
Right now I just keep using the oid's - but it would be nice to eliminate the
need for that completely.
UC
On Tuesday 06 December 2005 15:01, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 03:07:19PM -0800, Uwe C. Schroeder wrote:
> > the ctid seems to be the solution to my problem.
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The benefits of providing something based on ctid is to avoid the inefficiency
> of the index lookup on the primary key and it would work on tables without any
> primary key. I'm not sure it's worth the effort it would entail for those
> narrow use cases esp
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Right now you don't. :( ISTM there should be a way to get back the row
> you just inserted. Whether a ctid is the right way to do that I don't
> know...
>
> I'm going to move this over to -hackers to see what people over there
> have to say.
Perhaps
On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 03:07:19PM -0800, Uwe C. Schroeder wrote:
> the ctid seems to be the solution to my problem. I'm inserting the record in
> a
> transaction so the ctid shouldn't change while the transaction isn't finished
> (either rolled back or committed).
> One question though. How wou
