Re: UPSERT wiki page, and SQL MERGE syntax - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Greg Stark
Subject Re: UPSERT wiki page, and SQL MERGE syntax
Date
Msg-id CAM-w4HO7hMDXfVxE2tru0Ob+NN9JvEbRPnrZo1WBH9WKg9S+-Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: UPSERT wiki page, and SQL MERGE syntax  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
Responses Re: UPSERT wiki page, and SQL MERGE syntax
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> Basically, it's difficult to make this work for technical reasons
> precisely because what I have here isn't join-like. Can I easily
> disallow "OLD.*" in a RETURNING clause (recall that we only project
> inserted tuples, as always)? Even if you think that's okay, I'd rather
> give an error message indicating that that makes no sense, which is
> what happens right now.

Well OLD and NEW are also not joins yet we expose them this way. It
always seemed like a hack to me but better one hack than two different
inconsistent hacks, no?

Independent of all that though. CONFLICTING() isn't clear to me --
conflicting is a relative property of two or more objects which are
both (or all) conflicting with each other. Which one does
"CONFLICTING" refer to here?

-- 
greg



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Marko Tiikkaja
Date:
Subject: Re: pgcrypto: PGP signatures
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: pgcrypto: PGP signatures