From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
cc: Curt Kolovson <ckolovson@gmail.com>, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Bug in documentation:
 https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/spi-examples.html
In-reply-to: 
 <CAKFQuwZ=pA_pNhvVFn-Cdto2vXbdFRJif8mXb4MB5PT5-KUGvQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CANhYJV6HWtgz_qjx_APfK0PAgLUzY-2vjLuj7i_o=TZF1LAQew@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKFQuwbN7gzyEh-LBkXh+68xH8NS3QumYG8Tj6XVzG6zDvSuWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4114624.1689643322@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAKFQuwZ=pA_pNhvVFn-Cdto2vXbdFRJif8mXb4MB5PT5-KUGvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
	message dated "Mon, 17 Jul 2023 19:21:45 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-ID: <4124245.1689647806.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 22:36:46 -0400
Message-ID: <4124246.1689647806@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4124246.1689647806%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 6:22=E2=80=AFPM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wro=
te:
>> I think his point is that this example does not behave as the
>> documentation claims.  Which it does not, according to my
>> tests here.  I find this a bit disturbing --- did we intentionally
>> change the behavior of SPI_exec somewhere along the line?

> Appears to be a documentation fix oversight back in v9.0
> https://github.com/postgres/postgres/commit/2ddc600f8f0252a0864e85d5cc1e=
eb3b9687d7e9

Ah, thanks for the pointer.  I'd just been trying to bisect where
between 8.4 and 9.0 it changed, but failed because early-9.0 versions
don't build at all with current bison :-(

Anyway, given that the example needs updating, how should we do that
exactly?  Is it worth demonstrating both the behavior with RETURNING
and that without?  If not, which one to show?

			regards, tom lane