Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes:
> 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.)
I thought we were going to reject the patch outright anyway. The
compatibility consequences of changing command tags are not worth the
benefit, independently of how ugly the backend-side code may or may
not be.
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
