Re: PL/pgSQL 2
От | Joel Jacobson |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAASwCXc6kY9djLXbaxORKiVXuC5mOZxz8VrXkGKZhgVkSgOOMQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: PL/pgSQL 2
Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote: > I think that would actually be a good way to enforce the rule that an UPDATE > only updates a single row. Just put a "ASSERT ROW_COUNT=1;" after the > update. So instead of one line of code, I would need to write two lines of code at almost *all* places where a currently have an UPDATE. :-( In that case, I think "RETURNING TRUE INTO STRICT _OK" is less ugly. I think the problem with my perspective is my ambitions. I use PL/pgSQL not as a secondary language, but it's my primary language for developing applications. For me, updating a row, is like setting a variable in a normal language. No normal language would require two rows to set a variable. It would be like having to do: my $var = 10; die unless $var == 10; in Perl to set a variable.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: