| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Karol Trzcionka <karlikt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax |
| Date: | 2013-05-02 18:47:28 |
| Message-ID: | 121.1367520448@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Karol Trzcionka <karlikt(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> What do you think about function- or cast-like syntax. I mean:
> RETURNING OLD(foo.bar)
> or RETURNING OLD(foo).bar
> or RETURNING (foo::OLD).bar ?
> I think none of them should conflict with any other statements.
I think you'll find those alternatives are at least as ugly to
implement as they are to look at ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Karol Trzcionka | 2013-05-02 19:25:57 | Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-05-02 18:45:51 | Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax |