On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 11 May 2014 07:37, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Tom Lane has explained these problems in a very clear manner
>> in his below mail and shared his opinion about this feature as
>> well.
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/26819.1291133045@sss.pgh.pa.us
>
> I don't have Tom's wonderfully articulate way of saying things, so
> I'll say it my way:
>
> If you want to do this, you already can already write a query that has
> the same effect. But supporting the syntax directly to execute a
> statement with an undefinable outcome is a pretty bad idea, and worse
> than that, there's a ton of useful things that we *do* want that would
> be a much higher priority for work than this. If you support Postgres,
> prioritise, please.
Yes, you can already achieve what this feature can do by other means,
but this feature makes these cases 1) more efficient in terms of how
much work has to be done 2) simpler and more elegant to write. But
frankly I find it a bit insulting that I shouldn't work on this based
on other people's priorities. This is a high priority item for me.
I'll look at the problem reported by Amit and come back with a
solution and my rationale for adding this feature.
♜
