Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple count from complex commands [return]" issue

On Sun, 8 Sep 2002 19:50:21 -0300, Steve Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Proposal #1 (author: Steve Howe): >- > >PQcmdStatus() ==> Should return the last executed command #1a > or the same as the original command #1b = #2 >PQcmdTuples() ==> sho

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple count from complex commands [return]" issue

Hello Peter, Monday, September 9, 2002, 3:41:41 PM, you wrote: PE> Steve Howe writes: >> Here are the proposals for solutioning the "Return proper effected >> tuple count from complex commands [return]" issue as seen on TODO. >> >> Any comments ?... This is obviously open to voting and discussi

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple count

> I don't think we should add tuple counts from different commands, i.e. > adding UPDATE and DELETE counts just yields a totally meaningless > number. Agreed. > I don't think there is any need/desire to add additional API routines to > handle multiple return values. Yup. > Can I get some vo

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple count

Steve Howe wrote: > BM> We would return 0 for oid and an insert count, just like INSERT INTO ... > BM> SELECT. How is that weird? > It's not weird, or as weird as the other proposal which is retrieving > the last inserted OID number. If we can return some information for > the client, why not doi

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple count

Hello Bruce, Monday, September 9, 2002, 12:39:20 AM, you wrote: >> BM> I don't understand this objection. >> I misunderstood Joe's statement into thinking we wanted to sum the >> OIDs for all INSERT commands applied :) >> Please ignore this. >> But now that I read it again, I would prefer having

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple count

Hello Bruce, Monday, September 9, 2002, 12:36:38 AM, you wrote: BM> Joe Conway wrote: >> Sure, but that's why I am in favor of changing the tag. If you did: >> >> DELETE FROM fooview WHERE name LIKE 'Joe%'; >> >> and got: >> >> MUTATED 507324 3 >> >> it would mean that 3 tuples in total were

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple count

Hello Bruce, Monday, September 9, 2002, 12:22:26 AM, you wrote: BM> Steve Howe wrote: >> JC> return OID if sum of all replacement INSERTs in the rule inserted >> JC>only one row, else zero >> I don't agree with this one since it would lead us to a meaningless >> information... what

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple count

Joe Conway wrote: > Sure, but that's why I am in favor of changing the tag. If you did: > > DELETE FROM fooview WHERE name LIKE 'Joe%'; > > and got: > > MUTATED 507324 3 > > it would mean that 3 tuples in total were affected by all of the > substitute operations, only of of them being an INSE

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple count from complex commands [return]" issue

Hello Bruce, Monday, September 9, 2002, 12:21:11 AM, you wrote: BM> Steve Howe wrote: >> Hello Bruce, >> >> But this *is* the total number of rows affected. There is no current >> (defined) behavior of "rows affected by the same kind of command >> issued", although I agree it makes some sense.

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple count

Hello Bruce, Monday, September 9, 2002, 12:16:32 AM, you wrote: BM> Joe Conway wrote: BM> Any suggestion on how to show the tag mutated? Do we want to add more BM> tag possibilities? Again, I don't agree with PQcmdStatus() returning a pseudo-keyword, since I would expect a SQL command executed

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple count

Hello Joe, Sunday, September 8, 2002, 11:54:45 PM, you wrote: JC> Bruce Momjian wrote: >> I liked option #2. I don't think the _last_ query in a rule should have >> any special handling. >> >> So, to summarize #2, we have: >> >> if no INSTEAD, >> return value of original command

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple count

Joe Conway wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I liked option #2. I don't think the _last_ query in a rule should have > > any special handling. > > > > So, to summarize #2, we have: > > > > if no INSTEAD, > > return value of original command > > > > if INSTEAD, > > return tag

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple count from complex commands [return]" issue

Hello Bruce, Sunday, September 8, 2002, 10:52:45 PM, you wrote: BM> I liked option #2. I don't think the _last_ query in a rule should have BM> any special handling. BM> So, to summarize #2, we have: BM> if no INSTEAD, BM> return value of original command The problem is, this

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple count

I liked option #2. I don't think the _last_ query in a rule should have any special handling. So, to summarize #2, we have: if no INSTEAD, return value of original command if INSTEAD, return tag of original command return sum of all affected rows with

[HACKERS] Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple count from complex commands [return]" issue

Hello all, Here are the proposals for solutioning the "Return proper effected tuple count from complex commands [return]" issue as seen on TODO. Any comments ?... This is obviously open to voting and discussion. -- Best regards, Steve Howe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]