David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:36:38PM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> then the conclusion is foregone. To my mind, they should be thought of
> as running in parallel, or at least in an indeterminate order, just
> exactly the same way that different data modifications made in a single
> INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE command are considered to be made simultaneously.
>>
>> +1
> -1.
> When people want to see what has gone before, they can use RETURNING
> clauses. With the "indeterminate order" proposal, they cannot.
Say what? The RETURNING data is well defined in any case.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
