On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 at 00:21, John Howroyd <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> May I clarify the ideas being discussed so far, perhaps with a view to make a
> relevant proposal. My apologies if I get anything wrong or go too far.
>
> As I understand it the proposal is to supplement the syntax to something like:
>
> INSERT INTO table (a, b, c)
> VALUES ((1,2,3), (4,5,6), ...)
> WITH ORDINALITY
> RETURNING table.id, ordinality
> ;
>
> The meaning of which is to adjoin an ordinality column to the output
> reflecting the declaration order in the values clause. So an output of (not
> necessarily in any order):
> (1001, 1)
> (1003, 2)
> means that table.id = 1001 was assigned to the inserted row from tuple
> (1,2,3) (from VALUES, because that table.id is associated to ordinality = 1)
> and table.id = 1003 was assigned to the inserted row from tuple (4,5,6).
> The output being ordered as determined by the internals of query execution
> (not necessarily the one shown).
>
> Is that correct?
That would work as syntax for the task of tracking what id or other
server default is generated by a value clause tuple.
> I presume (although, not quite so clear) that one would have:
>
> INSERT INTO table (a, b, c)
> SELECT a_val, b_val, c_val
> FROM joined_tables
> WHERE some_condition
> ORDER BY something_relevant
> WITH ORDINALITY
> RETURNING table.id, ordinality
> ;
>
> The meaning being very much as before replacing 'declaration order' by 'row
> order of the SELECT statement as defined by the ORDER BY clause'; so pretty
> much like a row_number() but in the output of the RETURNING clause (and
> without an OVER modification). I added the ORDER BY clause as I don't really
> see what this would mean without it; but this (presumably) does not affect
> output order only the order of the incoming rows (and hence the generation of
> the ordinality output).
>
> Is that correct?
This would not be needed if the syntax with VALUES WITH ORDINALITY is
added in sqlalchemy. So fine either way.
If "WITH ORDINALITY" is a feature of VALUES this syntax would not be
allowed though. I'm personally ok limiting WITH ORDINALITY only to
VALUES.
> Might there be a natural syntax to label the 'ordinality' output column?
> Perhaps something like:
>
> ...
> WITH ORDINALITY (col_name)
> RETURNING table.id, col_name
> ;
>
> I don't want to clash with the syntax for Table Functions.
>
> Is it a step too far to propose allowing an additional ORDER BY clause after
> the RETURNING clause (a specific declaration for the query execution to
> assign cpu cycles; especially if the WITH ORDINALITY is not tied to output
> order)?
>
> Personally, I didn't see Frederico's comment as anything to do with order;
> just how one could output additional values in the RETURNING clause (namely,
> v.num from a subexpression of the SELECT but in whatever order it comes). On
> the other hand, that seems a lot more complicated to me because it is not an
> expression in the overall SELECT feeding the INSERT, whereas the WITH
> ORDINALITY is a specific declaration to match input order with output order
> by inserting a counter.
I didn't mean to suggest any particular order should be kept by insert
or by returning. I was merely commenting on the David G. Johnston
reply
I suppose breaking the restriction that only columns present on
the insertion-table can be returned is a possible option that also
solves another infrequent request.
> Apologies, if I have misunderstood or invented something that's not possible!
Thanks for the recap. I'm hoping this can become a proposal.
Best,
Federico
