Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}
Date
Msg-id CAM3SWZQO9F4PO09dzt1oNoOC1=k5JC=yvwTA2gcinxXhLN3AJw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
Responses Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}  (Anssi Kääriäinen <anssi.kaariainen@thl.fi>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> Looks like the consensus is that we should have RETURNING project
> updated tuples too, then.

Attached revision, v1.5, establishes this behavior (as always, there
is a variant for each approach to value locking). There is a new
commit with a commit message describing the new RETURNING/command tag
behavior in detail, so no need to repeat it here. The documentation
has been updated in these areas, too.

There is also one or two tiny comment tweaks here and there, as well
as a pg_proc OID collision fix in the case of the value locking
approach #1 variant.

My mirror of the documentation (i.e. a html build) has been updated.
INSERT command documentation (for new RETURNING behavior):

http://postgres-benchmarks.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/on-conflict-docs/sql-insert.html

Details of changes to command tag:

http://postgres-benchmarks.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/on-conflict-docs/protocol-message-formats.html

I'll make a pass at the Wiki page to reflect these changes soon.
--
Peter Geoghegan

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: memory explosion on planning complex query
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Add CREATE support to event triggers