On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:35 PM, P. Christeas <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:xrg@linux.gr"
target="_blank">xrg@linux.gr</a>></span>wrote:<br /><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:00 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On Sunday 21 October 2012, Vik
Reykjawrote:<br /> > On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Abhijit Menon-Sen<br /> <<a
href="mailto:ams@2ndquadrant.com">ams@2ndquadrant.com</a>>wrote:<br/></div><div class="im">> > Note: "INSERT …
RETURNING"doesn't accept an ORDER BY clause.<br /> ><br /> > Would anyone be opposed to somebody - say, me -
writinga patch to allow<br /> > that? It would take me a lot longer than an experienced hacker to do it,<br /> >
butI'm willing to try.<br /><br /><br /></div>I would oppose, for one.<br /><br /> Please, don't waste your time.
Reorderingthe INSERT .. RETURNING results is<br /> already possible today, with some nested syntax. At the same time,
bloating<br/> the INSERT syntax with SELECT semantics would be negative IMO. And I would see<br /> little use in having
sucha feature.<br /></blockquote></div><br />I wasn't thinking of bloating InsertStmt but returning_clause. There's no
reasonUpdateStmt and DeleteStmt shouldn't benefit also.<br /><br />But I'll hold off for now.<br />
