INSERT doc discrepancy
INSERT INTO table [ ( column [, ...] ) ]
{ DEFAULT VALUES | VALUES ( { expression | DEFAULT } [, ...] )
[, ...] | query }
[ RETURNING * | output_expression [ AS output_name ] [, ...] ]
but it seems if i want to return the result into a record i have to
use it with INTO clause in the end:
INSERT INTO tablename (
a
,b
,c
) VALUES (
in_a
,in_b
,in_c
) RETURNING * INTO _r;
using either
INSERT INTO tablename (
a
,b
,c
) VALUES (
in_a
,in_b
,in_c
) RETURNING _r;
or
INSERT INTO tablename (
a
,b
,c
) VALUES (
in_a
,in_b
,in_c
) RETURNING * AS _r;
didn't work on PostgreSQL 8.2.4
Kristo Kaiv
http://kaiv.wordpress.com (PostgreSQL blog)
Kristo Kaiv wrote:
INSERT INTO table [ ( column [, ...] ) ]
{ DEFAULT VALUES | VALUES ( { expression | DEFAULT } [, ...] ) [, ...]
| query }
[ RETURNING * | output_expression [ AS output_name ] [, ...] ]but it seems if i want to return the result into a record i have to use it
with INTO clause in the end:INSERT INTO tablename (
a
,b
,c
) VALUES (
in_a
,in_b
,in_c
) RETURNING * INTO _r;
Where's the discrepancy? INTO is not supported in the RETURNING clause.
... thinks for a while ...
Ah, you are using it in plpgsql! OK, but the explanation to the
discrepancy is that the second INTO is not part of the SQL sentence;
it's plpgsql only, and is parsed by its internal parser, so not really
part of the SQL grammar.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
Kristo Kaiv wrote:
but it seems if i want to return the result into a record i have to use it
with INTO clause in the end:
Ah, you are using it in plpgsql! OK, but the explanation to the
discrepancy is that the second INTO is not part of the SQL sentence;
it's plpgsql only, and is parsed by its internal parser, so not really
part of the SQL grammar.
And, in fact, the plpgsql documentation does show this usage (section
38.5.3 in devel docs, but I think the numbering has changed since 8.2).
regards, tom lane