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

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}
Date
Msg-id CAM3SWZS0wmy_ukmpSzrGPQP2WxPTtoV8F+J5zb7h=-jcBMNuJg@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}
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> My point is that people are not really inclined to use an alias in
> UPDATEs in general when referring to the target. The thing that seems
> special (and worthy of special qualification) is the reference to what
> you call the "incoming data", and what I've called "tuples proposed
> for insertion" (after being affected by any before row triggers).

For simple cases, you might not even bother with CONFLICTING() - you
might find it easier to just repeat the constant in the INSERT and
UPDATE parts of the query.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Deferring some AtStart* allocations?