Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 10005.1367550168@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax (Karol Trzcionka <karlikt@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Karol Trzcionka <karlikt@gmail.com> writes: > It will not solve the problems: > 1. How to access to old rows if the table is named "BEFORE"? The user can simply choose to use a different table alias, as Andres explained upthread. If any table's active alias is "before" (or "after"), we just don't activate the corresponding implicit alias. > 2. Should AFTER for DELETE and BEFORE for INSERT be allowed? If yes what > should they return? These cases should certainly fail. Now, IMO there's no very good reason to alter the behavior at all for INSERT/DELETE; only UPDATE has an issue here. But if we were going to support the extra aliases in those commands, only the ones that actually make sense should be allowed. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: