On 05/06/2015 09:51 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> So, yes, DO NOTHING does very little - and that is its appeal.
>> Supporting this behavior does not short change those who actually care
>> about the existing tuple sticking around for the duration of their
>> transaction - they have a way of doing that. If you want to document
>> INSERT IGNORE as being primarily an ETL-orientated thing, that would
>> make sense, but let's not hobble that use case.
>
> Yeah, I agree that DO NOTHING should not lock the rows. It might make
> sense to have a DO LOCK variant, which locks the rows, although I don't
> immediately see what the use case would be.
It seems like a very useful feature to me, if you want to upsert
something into a table with a serial column and get the value of the
serial column in a RETURNING clause (but not update any fields if there
is a conflict). Then I am pretty sure I want to lock the row.
Andreas
