On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote: > I think that would actually be a good way to enforce the rule that an UPDATE > only updates a single row. Just put a "ASSERT ROW_COUNT=1;" after the > update.
So instead of one line of code, I would need to write two lines of code at almost *all* places where a currently have an UPDATE. :-( In that case, I think "RETURNING TRUE INTO STRICT _OK" is less ugly. I think the problem with my perspective is my ambitions. I use PL/pgSQL not as a secondary language, but it's my primary language for developing applications. For me, updating a row, is like setting a variable in a normal language. No normal language would require two rows to set a variable. It would be like having to do: my $var = 10; die unless $var == 10; in Perl to set a variable. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
