From: | Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
Date: | 2014-09-02 21:12:42 |
Message-ID: | CAASwCXfG8Jc7r7sD4r-G_7juz0Xw6veMEWYtPUYoBgvYudB7rA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2014-09-02 19:06:02 +0200, Joel Jacobson wrote:
>> But what do you think about,
>> STRICT UPDATE ...?
>
> I quite dislike it. An UPDATE isn't less 'strict' (whatever that means)
> if updates more than one row. There's some sense in the way it's used
> for INTO because it's referring to the INTO. And it's much more obvious
> what it could mean there.
For those who are familiar with the "INTO STRICT" syntax for SELECT,
I think they will also understand the meaning with UPDATE,
and maybe it could also be considered a plus not having to invent new keywords,
if we can use the ones we already have for other commands.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2014-09-02 21:20:00 | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
Previous Message | David Johnston | 2014-09-02 21:11:49 | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |