On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 3:53 PM Sergei Kornilov <sk@zsrv.org> wrote:
Hi
>> Sure, but what are we going to achieve with that number? What >> information user is going to get by that? If it can help us to ensure >> that it has reset the expected number of statements, then I can see >> the clear usage, but without that, the return value doesn't seem to >> have any clear purpose. So, I don't see much value in breaking >> compatibility. >> >> Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter? > > This was proposed by Sergei Kornilov in > https://postgr.es/m/3368121530260059@web21g.yandex.ru saying that "it > would be nice" to return it. Maybe he has an use case in mind? I don't > see one myself. No, i have no specific usecase for this. Silently remove all matching rows and return void is ok for me. But i still think LOG ereport is not useful.
I would much prefer it to be a return code rather than a forced LOG message. Log message spam is very much a thing, and things that are logged as LOG will always be there.
It could also be made to take a parameter saying log yes/no with a default value, but that seems like possible overengineering of a fairly simple functionality.