Re: [PATCHES] Updated INSERT/UPDATE RETURNING

On 8/5/06, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Huh?  Why'd you remove it?  I can't imagine it makes things
> significantly simpler to omit that case, and even if you can't
> think of uses for it, I can (taking jobs from a to-do queue for
> instance).

It can be added back.  Dequeing is a good use-case idea though :)

> BTW, it occurs to me to wonder whether we've picked a good choice
> of syntax.  I don't remember where the suggestion to use "RETURNING"
> came from (did we borrow it from another DBMS?).

Oracle.  DB2 uses something similar to SELECT * FROM (UPDATE tbl SET ... );

> But AFAICS this syntax will require the introducing keyword to be a fully reserved
> word, and since RETURNING is not listed as a reserved word in the
> SQL spec, reserving it is arguably a spec violation.

True.

> The simplest alternative that comes to mind is to use RETURNS instead
> I don't have a strong feeling either way, but now is the time to
> decide.

I don't care either way, RETURNS is fine I guess.

> OK, but we need a final version soon.

Sure thing.

--
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1300
EnterpriseDB Corporation            | fax: 732.331.1301
33 Wood Ave S, 2nd Floor            | jharris@enterprisedb.com
Iselin, New Jersey 08830            | http://www.enterprisedb.com/