On 2010-11-08 6:38 PM +0200, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas<robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> I guess I shoulda been paying closer attention :-(. That really, really
>>> seems like fundamentally the wrong direction. What was it that was
>>> unfixable about the other way? If it is unfixable, should we revert
>>> ModifyTable?
>
>> The relevant thread is here:
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-02/msg00783.php
>
> My opinion is still the same as here:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-02/msg00688.php
>
> namely, that all we should be worrying about is a tuplestore full of
> RETURNING tuples. Any other side-effects of a DML subquery should
> *not* be visible to the calling query, and therefore all this argument
> about snapshots and seqscan limits is beside the point.
What happened to:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-10/msg00566.php ?
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
