Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes: > On lÃ¶r, 2012-03-17 at 18:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I'm not sure what we should do instead. We have gotten push-back before >> anytime we changed the command tag for an existing command (and in fact >> it seems that we intentionally added the rowcount display in 9.0, which >> means there are people out there who care about that functionality). >> On the other hand, the traditional output for CREATE TABLE AS doesn't >> seem to satisfy the principle of least astonishment. A third >> consideration is that if we are pushing CREATE TABLE AS as the preferred >> spelling, people will probably complain if it omits functionality that >> SELECT INTO provides; so I'm not sure that "SELECT n" in one case and >> "CREATE TABLE AS" in the other would be a good idea either. Any >> opinions what to do here?
> Another consideration is that the SQL command tags are defined by the > SQL standard. So if we were to change it, then it should be "CREATE > TABLE". I'm not convinced that it should be changed, though. (I recall > cross-checking our list against the SQL standard in the past, so there > might have been discussion on this already.) If we were going to change the output at all, I would vote for "CREATE TABLE nnnn" so as to preserve the rowcount functionality. Keep in mind though that this would force client-side changes, for instance in libpq's PQcmdTuples(). Fixing that one routine isn't so painful, but what of other client-side libraries, not to mention applications? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers