On 14/06/12 18:46, Jochem van Dieten wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 2:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>     I'm not even 100% sold that automatically returning the primary key
>     is going to save any application logic.  Could somebody point out
>     *exactly* where an app is going to save effort with this type of
>     syntax, compared to requesting the columns it wants by name?
> I haven't checked the code, but I am hoping it will help with the problem 
> where a RETURNING * is added to a statement that is not an insert or update
> by the JDBC driver. That has been reported on the JDBC list at least twice,
> and the proposed workaround is neither very elegant nor very robust:
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/pgsql.interfaces.jdbc/7WY60JX3qyo/-v1fqDqLQKwJ

Unfortunately that seems to be a JDBC-specific issue, which is outside
of the scope of this particular patch (which proposes additional server-side
syntax intended to make RETURNING * operations more efficient for
certain use cases, but which is in itself not a JDBC change).


Ian Barwick

 Ian Barwick                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to