On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote:
> In the mailing list thread that you linked there, Tom suggested using
> "STRICT UPDATE ..." to mean that updating 0 or >1 rows is an error
> (http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/16397.1356106...@sss.pgh.pa.us). What
> happened to that proposal?

>From the STRICT mail thread, this was the last post:

>"Marko Tiikkaja" <ma...@joh.to> writes:
>> If I'm counting correctly, we have four votes for this patch and two votes
>> against it.
>> Any other opinions?
>FWIW, I share Peter's poor opinion of this syntax.  I can see the
>appeal of not having to write an explicit check of the rowcount
>afterwards, but that appeal is greatly weakened by the strange syntax.
>(IOW, if you were counting me as a + vote, that was only a vote for
>the concept --- on reflection I don't much like this implementation.)
>regards, tom lane

I think it's much better to make it the default behaviour in plpgsql2
than to add a new syntax to plpgsql,
because then we don't have to argue what to call the keyword or where to put it.

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

Reply via email to