From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Greg Rychlewski <greg.rychlewski@gmail.com>
cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Returning from a rule with extended query protocol
In-reply-to: <CAKemG7U4r2yFCoQEkLWH0N9B9tMtCX_OmGkqpmyfZtt55-NFRg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKemG7U4r2yFCoQEkLWH0N9B9tMtCX_OmGkqpmyfZtt55-NFRg@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Greg Rychlewski <greg.rychlewski@gmail.com>
	message dated "Sun, 11 Aug 2024 07:29:25 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <59492.1723413265.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2024 17:54:25 -0400
Message-ID: <59493.1723413265@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/59493.1723413265%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Greg Rychlewski <greg.rychlewski@gmail.com> writes:
> I was testing creating a rule that uses RETURNING and noticed a differen=
ce
> between the extended query protocol and the simple query protocol. In th=
e
> former, RETURNING is ignored (at least in my case) and the latter it is
> respected:

I think this might be the same issue recently discussed here:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1df84daa-7d0d-e8cc-4762-85523e4=
5e5e7%40mailbox.org

That discussion was leaning towards the idea that the cost-benefit
of fixing this isn't attractive and we should just document the
discrepancy.  However, with two reports now, maybe we should rethink.

			regards, tom lane