On 2015-05-08 16:36:07 +0100, Geoff Winkless wrote: > I thought the previous version suggested multiple possible targets and > actions, this suggests that while there can be multiple targets the > action is always the same.
I don't think any version of the patch included that functionality. I can see it being useful, but it'd make a bunch of things more complicated, so I doubt we'll get there for 9.5.
I'm not particularly bothered by it - I only see it ever being useful on the extreme edge case, and
I certainly wouldn't want
it
to hold up the release - but it was the only reason I could see for requiring a target_clause in the first place (I
expect that's why I
misread the docs previously!). If you can't specify different actions based on the target_clause, what's the point in forcing the user to enumerate it?
> example (or similar); do we think people will be smart enough to realise > that's possible without one?
Hm. I'm tempted to say that the synopis makes that clear enough.
Unless I'm missing it, it's really only in "This happens on a row-by-row basis" and in the "deterministic" paragraph that you even mention multi-line inserts in the ON CONFLICT section.
I
personally never check such examples though, so maybe I'm the wrong person to judge.
I'm afraid I'm the sort of person who goes straight to the examples :)
Maybe I'll just suggest then that there's a _potential for confusion_ if you only give examples of the first kind - people might place some inference on the fact that the examples only show single-row INSERTs.
