On 14/06/12 18:46, Jochem van Dieten wrote: > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 2:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > I'm not even 100% sold that automatically returning the primary key > is going to save any application logic. Could somebody point out > *exactly* where an app is going to save effort with this type of > syntax, compared to requesting the columns it wants by name? > > > I haven't checked the code, but I am hoping it will help with the problem > where a RETURNING * is added to a statement that is not an insert or update > by the JDBC driver. That has been reported on the JDBC list at least twice, > and the proposed workaround is neither very elegant nor very robust: > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/pgsql.interfaces.jdbc/7WY60JX3qyo/-v1fqDqLQKwJ
Unfortunately that seems to be a JDBC-specific issue, which is outside of the scope of this particular patch (which proposes additional server-side syntax intended to make RETURNING * operations more efficient for certain use cases, but which is in itself not a JDBC change). Regards Ian Barwick -- Ian Barwick http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
