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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
