On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 3:53 PM Sergei Kornilov <s...@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/3368121530260...@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. -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/> Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
