Andrew McMillan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Could we get away with restricting INSERT RETURNING to work only on
>> inserts directly to tables (no ON INSERT DO INSTEAD allowed)? Or is
>> that too much of a kluge?
> Isn't it likely that the person writing the RULE would want t
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> While this all seems good at first glance, I am wondering just how
> useful it really would be in practice. The problem is: how do you know
> which rows to return in the RETURNS query? If you don't qualify the
> selection then you'll get all the rows in the view, which is su
At 18:03 21/07/01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>Could we get away with restricting INSERT RETURNING to work only on
>inserts directly to tables (no ON INSERT DO INSTEAD allowed)? Or is
>that too much of a kluge?
>
I don't see it as a kludge, just a limitation on the first pass. If people
need the fe
I like the idea of adding an INSERT ... RETURNING capability,
per Philip Warner's suggestion of about a year ago
(http://fts.postgresql.org/db/mw/msg.html?mid=68704). We did not
figure out what to do if the INSERT operation is rewritten by a rule,
but I have an idea about that. ISTM that to supp
