On Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 12:29:56AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> writes: > > Would it be super-complicated to do this with CTEs for 8.5? They > > seem to have sane properties like getting executed exactly once. > > Hmm, interesting thought. The knock against doing RETURNING as an > ordinary subquery is exactly that you can't disentangle it very well > from the upper query (and thus, it's hard to figure out when to fire > triggers, to take just one problem). But we've defined CTEs much > more restrictively, so maybe the problems can be solved in that > context.
I was discussing this with Andrew Gierth in IRC, who thought that putting RETURNING inside the WITH clause would be relatively easy, at least for the parser and planner. For the executor, he suggested that one approach might be to make INSERT, UPDATE and DELETE into their own nodes. Comments? Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
