Message-ID: <1332176001.8435.1.camel@vanquo.pezone.net>
Subject: Re: Command Triggers, patch v11
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Thom
	Brown <thom@linux.com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:53:21 +0200
In-Reply-To: <24506.1332119786@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <m24nufq466.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr>
	<201203162237.38813.andres@anarazel.de>
	<21818.1331934775@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<201203162317.43818.andres@anarazel.de> <7094.1331996567@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<9503.1332006327@sss.pgh.pa.us> <24814.1332021870@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<1332107267.6915.2.camel@vanquo.pezone.net>
	<24506.1332119786@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Mime-Version: 1.0

On sön, 2012-03-18 at 21:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> If we were going to change the output at all, I would vote for "CREATE
> TABLE nnnn" so as to preserve the rowcount functionality.  Keep in
> mind though that this would force client-side changes, for instance in
> libpq's PQcmdTuples().  Fixing that one routine isn't so painful, but
> what of other client-side libraries, not to mention applications?

Doesn't seem worth it to me.  At least, "SELECT nnnn" makes some sense:
nnnn rows were selected.  "CREATE TABLE nnnn" means what?  nnnn tables
were created?

What might make sense is to delegate this additional information to
separate fields in a future protocol revision.