Re: FOUND not set by EXECUTE? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Wheeler
Subject Re: FOUND not set by EXECUTE?
Date
Msg-id 44F8DF5C-F843-4F06-ABD3-50F2AA2CA910@kineticode.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: FOUND not set by EXECUTE?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Apr 8, 2006, at 14:38, Tom Lane wrote:

> It *is* documented: the manual lists the statements that affect FOUND,
> and EXECUTE is not among them.
>
> Whether it should be is another question, but that's a definition
> disagreement (a/k/a enhancement proposal) not a bug.

I think that:

a. It should be (it'd be very useful, without a doubt).
b. Until it is, the docs should explicitly mention that EXECUTE   does not affect found. No, EXECUTE is not in the
list,and   UPDATE, INSERT, and DELETE are, and although I'm using them   in an EXECUTE statement rather than directly
inthe PL/pgSQL,   it still seemed rather confusing, because they're still   UPDATE, INSERT, and DELETE.
 

So yes, it's a definition disagreement, but I think that things could  
be clearer.

Thanks,

David


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Gregory Maxwell"
Date:
Subject: Re: Support Parallel Query Execution in Executor
Next
From: "Luke Lonergan"
Date:
Subject: Re: Support Parallel Query Execution in Executor