Jochem van Dieten wrote:
> Dwayne Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> SELECT nextval('mysequence') AS PKEY FROM DUAL;
>> ...
>> Your inserts and updates using #queryname.pkey#
>
>
> I know, but it has 2 queries again, which is exactly the reason why I
> don't want it (I am actually developing this to be use
Jochem van Dieten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Uh ... why? Seems like a useless anti-feature. Certainly suppressing
>> the count wouldn't save a noticeable number of cycles.
> I am not in it for the cycles, just for the laziness ;)
> Currently working with a ColdFusion frontend through ODBC,
Jochem van Dieten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does PostgresQL have some way to make update, insert and delete queries
> not return the number of affected rows? I know that in MS SQL one would
> use NOCOUNT for that.
Uh ... why? Seems like a useless anti-feature. Certainly suppressing
the co
Tom Lane wrote:
> Jochem van Dieten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>Does PostgresQL have some way to make update, insert and delete queries
>>not return the number of affected rows? I know that in MS SQL one would
>>use NOCOUNT for that.
>>
>
> Uh ... why? Seems like a useless anti-feature.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 03:38:08PM +0200, Jochem van Dieten wrote:
> Does PostgresQL have some way to make update, insert and delete queries
> not return the number of affected rows? I know that in MS SQL one would
> use NOCOUNT for that.
Just ignore the result. Postgres has to find all the row
Does PostgresQL have some way to make update, insert and delete queries
not return the number of affected rows? I know that in MS SQL one would
use NOCOUNT for that.
TIA,
Jochem
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet,
