On 8/5/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here's the updated patch with DELETE RETURNING removed. This isn't
> really an issue because no one wanted DELETE RETURNING to begin with.
I don't have the time to add DELETE RETURNING back in. My i
"Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 8/5/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> BTW, it occurs to me to wonder whether we've picked a good choice
>> of syntax. I don't remember where the suggestion to use "RETURNING"
>> came from (did we borrow it from another DBMS?).
> Oracle.
On 8/5/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Huh? Why'd you remove it? I can't imagine it makes things
significantly simpler to omit that case, and even if you can't
think of uses for it, I can (taking jobs from a to-do queue for
instance).
It can be added back. Dequeing is a good use-case
"Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here's the updated patch with DELETE RETURNING removed. This isn't
> really an issue because no one wanted DELETE RETURNING to begin with.
Huh? Why'd you remove it? I can't imagine it makes things
significantly simpler to omit that case, and even
