On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of vie ene 14 08:40:07 -0300 2011: > >> Also, I don't really like the way this spreads knowledge of the >> completionTag out all over the backend. I think it would be better to >> follow the existing model used by the COPY and COMMIT commands, >> whereby the return value indicates what happened and >> standard_ProcessUtility() uses that to set the command tag. > > Yeah, that looks ugly. However it's already ugly elsewhere: for example > see PerformPortalFetch. I am not sure if it should be this patch's > responsability to clean that stuff up. (Maybe we should decree that at > least this patch shouldn't make the situation worse.)
Agreed: it's not the patch's job to clean it up, but it shouldn't make the situation worse. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
