From: | Jochem van Dieten <jochemd(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Ian Barwick <ian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: "RETURNING PRIMARY KEY" syntax extension |
Date: | 2014-06-12 11:58:31 |
Message-ID: | CABPCP-3N3UU_QwFQJ1Zvv4ULas75TMihJvK5N864QJkUC2KiQA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Ian Barwick wrote:
> On 14/06/12 18:46, Jochem van Dieten wrote:
> > I haven't checked the code, but I am hoping it will help with the problem
> > where a RETURNING * is added to a statement that is not an insert or
> update
> > by the JDBC driver. That has been reported on the JDBC list at least
> twice,
> > and the proposed workaround is neither very elegant nor very robust:
> >
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/pgsql.interfaces.jdbc/7WY60JX3qyo/-v1fqDqLQKwJ
>
> Unfortunately that seems to be a JDBC-specific issue, which is outside
> of the scope of this particular patch (which proposes additional
> server-side
> syntax intended to make RETURNING * operations more efficient for
> certain use cases, but which is in itself not a JDBC change).
>
But the obvious way to fix the JDBC issue is not to fix it by adding a
'mini parser' on the JDBC side, but to make SELECT ... RETURNING PRIMARY
KEY a regular select that silently ignores the returning clause and doesn't
throw an error on the server-side.
That might still be outside the scope of this particular patch, but it
would provide (additional) justification if it were supported.
Jochem
--
Jochem van Dieten
http://jochem.vandieten.net/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-06-12 12:20:00 | Re: "RETURNING PRIMARY KEY" syntax extension |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2014-06-12 11:51:36 | Audit of logout |