(Oops, just realized I only replied to a part of your message. I'm
blaming it on my lack of sleep.)
On 14/09/2013 06:53, chris travers wrote:
2) If you're running in strict mode and you want to
insert/update/delete more than one row, things get a bit uglier; a wCTE
would work for some cases. I
On 14/09/2013 06:53, chris travers wrote:
I am going to suggest that STRICT is semantically pretty far from what is meant
here in common speech. I think STRICT here would be confusing. This would be
really pretty severe for people coming from Perl or MySQL backgrounds.
The name of the feature
2013/9/14 chris travers
> **
> A few thoughts about this.
>
> > On 14 September 2013 at 05:28 Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > After my previous suggestion for adding a STRICT keyword got shot
> > down[1], I've been thinking about an idea Andrew Gierth tossed out:
> > adding a new
A few thoughts about this.
> On 14 September 2013 at 05:28 Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> After my previous suggestion for adding a STRICT keyword got shot
> down[1], I've been thinking about an idea Andrew Gierth tossed out:
> adding a new "strict mode" into PL/PgSQL. In this mode, any quer
On 14/09/2013 06:28, I wrote:
2) Checking row_count for a statement is ugly and cumbersome, so
often it just isn't checked. I often use RETURNING TRUE INTO STRICT _OK
for DML, but that a) requires an extra variable, and b) isn't possible
if 0 rows affected is not an error in the application
Hi,
After my previous suggestion for adding a STRICT keyword got shot
down[1], I've been thinking about an idea Andrew Gierth tossed out:
adding a new "strict mode" into PL/PgSQL. In this mode, any query which
processes more than one row will raise an exception. This is a bit
similar to spe
