Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Karol Trzcionka <karlikt(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax
Date: 2013-05-02 18:47:28
Message-ID: 121.1367520448@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Karol Trzcionka <karlikt(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> What do you think about function- or cast-like syntax. I mean:
> RETURNING OLD(foo.bar)
> or RETURNING OLD(foo).bar
> or RETURNING (foo::OLD).bar ?
> I think none of them should conflict with any other statements.

I think you'll find those alternatives are at least as ugly to
implement as they are to look at ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Karol Trzcionka 2013-05-02 19:25:57 Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax
Previous Message Tom Lane 2013-05-02 18:45:51 Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax