Hello,
as a continuation of my proposal expanding RETURNING syntax by
AFTER/BEFORE, there can be enough time to implement RETURNING for COPY.
I'd like to hear your opinion on that. My draft idea is:
COPY FROM ... RETURNING table_name.* - returns all values copied to
table after all triggers invoke
Hello
why? What is motivation? What is use case?
Regards
Pavel
2013/5/8 Karol Trzcionka karl...@gmail.com
Hello,
as a continuation of my proposal expanding RETURNING syntax by
AFTER/BEFORE, there can be enough time to implement RETURNING for COPY.
I'd like to hear your opinion on that.
Karol Trzcionka karl...@gmail.com writes:
as a continuation of my proposal expanding RETURNING syntax by
AFTER/BEFORE, there can be enough time to implement RETURNING for COPY.
No there isn't; what you suggest would require FE/BE protocol
extensions, making it several orders of magnitude more
On 08.05.2013 19:44, Tom Lane wrote:
Karol Trzcionkakarl...@gmail.com writes:
as a continuation of my proposal expanding RETURNING syntax by
AFTER/BEFORE, there can be enough time to implement RETURNING for COPY.
No there isn't; what you suggest would require FE/BE protocol
extensions,
Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com writes:
On 08.05.2013 19:44, Tom Lane wrote:
No there isn't; what you suggest would require FE/BE protocol
extensions, making it several orders of magnitude more work than the
other thing.
I'd imagine that the flow would go something like this:
BE
Karol Trzcionka karl...@gmail.com writes:
as a continuation of my proposal expanding RETURNING syntax by
What about implementing support for OLD/NEW in per-statement triggers? I
guess you would expose the data via a SRF.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL :
On 05/08/2013 01:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
That would require the backend to buffer the entire query response,
which isn't a great idea. I would expect that such an operation would
need to interleave CopyData to the backend with DataRow responses. Such
a thing could possibly be built on
On May 8, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com writes:
On 08.05.2013 19:44, Tom Lane wrote:
No there isn't; what you suggest would require FE/BE protocol
extensions, making it several orders of magnitude more work than the
other thing.
I'd imagine
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 01:16:14PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com writes:
On 08.05.2013 19:44, Tom Lane wrote:
No there isn't; what you suggest would require FE/BE protocol
extensions, making it several orders of magnitude more work than the
other thing.
On Wed, May 05/08/13, 2013 at 10:55:40AM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 01:16:14PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com writes:
On 08.05.2013 19:44, Tom Lane wrote:
No there isn't; what you suggest would require FE/BE protocol
* Ryan Kelly (rpkell...@gmail.com) wrote:
COPY ... RETURNING would certainly be useful to apply additional
transformations to the data before finally sending it to its ultimate
destination.
If we really think that COPY ... RETURNING is only going to be used in a
CTE or similar, then we could
On 5/8/13 12:54 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
On May 8, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com writes:
On 08.05.2013 19:44, Tom Lane wrote:
No there isn't; what you suggest would require FE/BE protocol
extensions, making it several orders of magnitude more
On 5/8/13 12:33 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Karol Trzcionka karl...@gmail.com writes:
as a continuation of my proposal expanding RETURNING syntax by
What about implementing support for OLD/NEW in per-statement triggers? I
guess you would expose the data via a SRF.
Per statement NEW/OLD is
On 05/08/2013 03:23 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
WITH new_data AS (
COPY FROM ...
RETURNING id, field_to_check
)
Why is this better than this, which you can do today?
WITH new_data AS (
INSERT into ... FROM foreign_table_with_file_fdw RETURNING ...
)
The whole reason I
On Wed, May 05/08/13, 2013 at 03:38:10PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 05/08/2013 03:23 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
WITH new_data AS (
COPY FROM ...
RETURNING id, field_to_check
)
Why is this better than this, which you can do today?
WITH new_data AS (
INSERT into ...
15 matches
Mail list logo
