| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin(at)geoff(dot)dj> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT IGNORE (and UPDATE) 3.0 |
| Date: | 2015-04-23 15:02:19 |
| Message-ID: | 20150423150219.GA2306@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-04-23 15:52:40 +0100, Geoff Winkless wrote:
> When I set out I was really only hoping to express a preference as a user;
> on balance I would really rather not have DO IGNORE, if it were possible to
> avoid, because it's really ugly, but DO UPDATE/DO NOTHING I could just
> about cope with (and means you don't need to add IGNORE as a keyword,
> win!), although it still mildly pains me that there's an additional
> unnecessary word.
Yea, DO NOTHING is a good alternative. And I do like we're adding one
keyword less (which is also good for the parser's
size/performance).
DO {UPDATE ... | NOTHING | LOCK} doesn't sound too bad to me (yes, LOCK
doesn't exist yet, except by writing UPDATE .. WHERE false ;)).
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-04-23 15:04:33 | Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table. |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2015-04-23 15:00:43 | Re: tablespaces inside $PGDATA considered harmful |