Re: Bug in PL/pgSQL GET DIAGNOSTICS?

Manfred Koizar wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 21:40:03 -0400 (EDT), Bruce Momjian
> <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote:
> >Item 3 is the most controversial.  Some say sum all tuple counts, i.e.
> >sum INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE.  That just seems to messy to me.  I think
> >summing only the matching tags has the highest probability of returning
> >a meaningful number.
> 
> [Trying to keep it short this time]
> 
> I still believe that there is more than one correct answer; it just
> depends on what the dba intends.  So I proposed a syntax change for
> letting the dba explicitly mark the statements she/he wants to affect
> tuple count and oid.
> 
> -> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2002-09/msg00720.php
> 
> Unfortunately I tried to summarize all other proposals and the mail
> got so long that nobody read it to the end :-(

That is an interesting idea;  some syntax in the rule that marks the
items.  The one downside to that is the fact the rule writer has to
make adjustments.  Perhaps we could implement the behavoir I described
and add such tagging later.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073