On 23 April 2012 21:49, Nick Apperson <apper...@gmail.com> wrote: > There are obviously workarounds for this, but I'm wondering why the > following query shouldn't work. It seems like it should. With MVCC already > present on the back-end, I can't see any reason other than additional > parsing routines that this couldn't work: > > INSERT INTO old_login_id_to_new_account_id(new_account_id, old_login_id) > INSERT INTO accounts(id, username, password_hash, email) SELECT DEFAULT, > username, password_hash, email FROM logins_old RETURNING id, logins_old.id; > > Anyway, I'm sure there are more important features for Postgres (like > upserts, unique indexes on GIN, Gist and hash, fixed arrays, compact storage > of enum arrays as bitfields, etc.) I just thought it was an interesting > idea.
You should be able to use writeable common table expressions to achieve a linking behaviour. http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/queries-with.html http://www.depesz.com/index.php/2011/03/16/waiting-for-9-1-writable-cte/ http://thombrown.blogspot.de/2011/11/writeable-common-table-expressions.html But I'm not sure the query you posted makes any sense. Why would a SELECT statement have a RETURNING clause? And where do the values for the first INSERT come from? -- Thom -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
