Re: Using results from INSERT ... RETURNING

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Robert Haas escribi:
>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> I notice also that the patch has chosen to represent Dml in XML/JSON
>>> explain output as Node Type = Dml with an entirely new attribute
>>> Operation to indicate Insert/Update/Delete. Do we really want to
>>> go there? Adding single-purpose attributes doesn't seem like a great
>>> idea.
>>
>> Well, I was the one who suggested doing it that way, so you can blame
>> me for that, but it is consistent with how we've handled other things,
>> like setops and jointypes: the details get moved to another tag so as
>> to avoid an explosive growth in the number of node types that clients
>> must be prepared for.

> Perhaps how a join is implemented in a plan can be considered a
> "detail", but I don't think the same holds true for insert vs. update.

Also, in all the other cases we stuck the detail into a common
attribute called Strategy. What bothers me about Operation is that
there is only one node type that it is good for. I would prefer to
keep the text and XML representations of this the same, which at the
moment seems to mean that the node type should be reported as
Insert/Update/Delete.

regards, tom lane