Re: [PATCH] Return command tag 'REPLACE X' for CREATE OR REPLACE statements.

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: 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 14:30:00
Message-ID: AANLkTikxWrN2nxdrrtMY8kNFzbnnFeYiwrB7ff0Q=-cE@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.)

Agreed: it's not the patch's job to clean it up, but it shouldn't make
the situation worse.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2011-01-14 14:44:31 Re: Database file copy
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2011-01-14 14:26:05 Re: Database file copy