On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Marko Tiikkaja >> <marko.tiikk...@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote: >>> We have yet to reach a consensus on the name for this feature. I don't >>> think we have any really good candidates, but I like "DML WITH" best so far. > >> Why can't we complain about the actual SQL statement the user issued? >> Like, say: >> INSERT requires RETURNING when used within a referenced CTE > > We could probably make that work for error messages, but what about > documentation? It's going to be awkward to write something like > "INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE RETURNING" every time we need to make a general > statement about the behavior of all three.
The current patch includes a total of 5 lines of text documenting this new feature (plus one example), so the issue doesn't really arise. If, as I believe, more documentation is needed, then we may need to think about how to handle this, but it's hard to speculate without a bit more context. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
