| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Karol Trzcionka <karlikt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax |
| Date: | 2013-05-02 17:40:59 |
| Message-ID: | 28565.1367516459@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 06:28:53PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
>> prior/after? Both are unreserved keywords atm and it seems far less
>> likely to have conflicts than new/old.
> BEFORE/AFTER seems more logical to me.
Works for me.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Karol Trzcionka | 2013-05-02 17:53:46 | Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-05-02 17:14:17 | Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax |