W dniu 02.05.2013 20:45, Tom Lane pisze: > David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> writes: >> Maybe we can make BEFORE and AFTER implied aliases rather than >> keywords. What say? > Well, they still have to be unreserved keywords for their use in > trigger-related commands, but as far as this feature is concerned > I think they're best off being handled as automatically-supplied > aliases. IOW the patch needn't touch gram.y at all. Well... the syntax which wouldn't conflict with Pl/PgSQL is (draft): INSERT INTO foo ... RETURNING AFTER.* UPDATE foo SET ... RETURNING AFTER.*, BEFORE.* DELETE FROM foo ... RETURNING BEFORE.* It will not solve the problems: 1. How to access to old rows if the table is named "BEFORE"? 2. Should AFTER for DELETE and BEFORE for INSERT be allowed? If yes what should they return? I mean: what should be result of: INSERT INTO foo ... RETURNING BEFORE.* and DELETE FROM foo ... RETURNING AFTER.* ? The best summarize of dropping NEW/OLD keywords for this proposal was proposed while IRC meeting: create or replace function ft1(integer) returns integer language plpgsql as $f$ <<x>> declare r rt1; begin select 1 as a into r; update rt1 r set a = a + 1 returning XXX into r; raise notice 'r = %', r; return null; end; $f$; Regards, Karol Trzcionka
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
