| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Return command tag 'REPLACE X' for CREATE OR REPLACE statements. |
| Date: | 2011-01-14 17:07:14 |
| Message-ID: | 7606.1295024834@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of vie ene 14 08:40:07 -0300 2011:
>> Also, I don't really like the way this spreads knowledge of the
>> completionTag out all over the backend. I think it would be better to
>> follow the existing model used by the COPY and COMMIT commands,
>> whereby the return value indicates what happened and
>> standard_ProcessUtility() uses that to set the command tag.
> Yeah, that looks ugly. However it's already ugly elsewhere: for example
> see PerformPortalFetch. I am not sure if it should be this patch's
> responsability to clean that stuff up. (Maybe we should decree that at
> least this patch shouldn't make the situation worse.)
I thought we were going to reject the patch outright anyway. The
compatibility consequences of changing command tags are not worth the
benefit, independently of how ugly the backend-side code may or may
not be.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-01-14 17:15:56 | Re: [PATCH] Return command tag 'REPLACE X' for CREATE OR REPLACE statements. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-14 17:04:04 | Re: Error code for "terminating connection due to conflict with recovery" |