Re: Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.44.0209091934310.18819-100000@localhost.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple count from complex commands [return]" issue  (Steve Howe <howe@carcass.dhs.org>)
Responses Re: Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple count from complex commands [return]" issue  (Steve Howe <howe@carcass.dhs.org>)
Re: Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Steve Howe writes:

> Here are the proposals for solutioning the "Return proper effected
> tuple count from complex commands [return]" issue as seen on TODO.
>
> Any comments ?... This is obviously open to voting and discussion.

We don't have a whole lot of freedom in this; this area is covered by the
SQL standard.  The major premise in the standard's point of view is that
views are supposed to be transparent.  That is, if
   SELECT * FROM my_view WHERE condition;

return N rows, then a subsequently executed
   UPDATE my_view SET ... WHERE condition;

returns an update count of N, no matter what happens behind the scenes.  I
don't think this matches Tom Lane's view exactly, but it's a lot closer
than your proposal.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: SIMILAR TO
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: problem with new autocommit config parameter and jdbc