Re: Review of Writeable CTE Patch
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Review of Writeable CTE Patch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 11096.1265212721@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Review of Writeable CTE Patch (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Review of Writeable CTE Patch
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Marko Tiikkaja > <marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote: >> We have yet to reach a consensus on the name for this feature. �I don't >> think we have any really good candidates, but I like "DML WITH" best so far. > Why can't we complain about the actual SQL statement the user issued? > Like, say: > INSERT requires RETURNING when used within a referenced CTE We could probably make that work for error messages, but what about documentation? It's going to be awkward to write something like "INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE RETURNING" every time we need to make a general statement about the behavior of all three. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: