Re: [HACKERS] PL/PgSQL GET DIAGNOSTICS command

2001-02-12 Thread Bruce Momjian
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 12:04:08PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I see the new PL/PgSQL command: > > > > GET DIAGNOSTICS > > > > This seems like a poorly-worded command to me. It is meant to return > > the number of rows affected by a previous query, right? > > Among other things, even

Re: [HACKERS] PL/PgSQL GET DIAGNOSTICS command

2001-02-12 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Bruce Momjian writes: > I see the new PL/PgSQL command: > > GET DIAGNOSTICS > > This seems like a poorly-worded command to me. It is meant to return > the number of rows affected by a previous query, right? That's how SQL wants it. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] http:/

Re: [HACKERS] PL/PgSQL GET DIAGNOSTICS command

2001-02-12 Thread Ross J. Reedstrom
On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 12:04:08PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I see the new PL/PgSQL command: > > GET DIAGNOSTICS > > This seems like a poorly-worded command to me. It is meant to return > the number of rows affected by a previous query, right? Among other things, eventually. You get

[HACKERS] PL/PgSQL GET DIAGNOSTICS command

2001-02-12 Thread Bruce Momjian
I see the new PL/PgSQL command: GET DIAGNOSTICS This seems like a poorly-worded command to me. It is meant to return the number of rows affected by a previous query, right? -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610)