Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Fetter
Subject Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax
Date
Msg-id 20130502183707.GD12887@fetter.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax  (Atri Sharma <atri.jiit@gmail.com>)
Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 01:40:59PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes:
> > On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 06:28:53PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> prior/after? Both are unreserved keywords atm and it seems far less
> >> likely to have conflicts than new/old.
> 
> > BEFORE/AFTER seems more logical to me.
> 
> Works for me.
> 
>             regards, tom lane

Maybe we can make BEFORE and AFTER implied aliases rather than
keywords.  What say?

Cheers,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fabien COELHO
Date:
Subject: Re: pgbench --startup option
Next
From: Atri Sharma
Date:
Subject: Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax