Re: MERGE ... RETURNING - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Gurjeet Singh
Subject Re: MERGE ... RETURNING
Date
Msg-id CABwTF4UOitwEwiPRmoirkZ=NuCmWhUnfN+ypKz_T6rrSCdX95Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: MERGE ... RETURNING  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 3:39 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> On 2023-Jul-05, Gurjeet Singh wrote:

> > I expected the .out file to have captured the stdout. I'm gradually,
> > and gladly, re-learning bits of the test infrastructure.
> >
> > The DELETE command tag in the output does not feel appropriate for a
> > COPY command that's using MERGE as the source of the data.
>
> You misread this one :-)  The COPY output is there, the tag is not.  So
> DELETE is the value from pg_merge_action(), and "1 100" correspond to
> the columns in the the sq_target row that was deleted.  The command tag
> is presumably MERGE 1.

:-) That makes more sense. It matches my old mental model. Thanks for
clarifying!

Best regards,
Gurjeet
http://Gurje.et



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Add more sanity checks around callers of changeDependencyFor()
Next
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Subject: Re: pgsql: Fix search_path to a safe value during maintenance operations.