Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT IGNORE (and UPDATE) 3.0

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin(at)geoff(dot)dj>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT IGNORE (and UPDATE) 3.0
Date: 2015-04-23 15:29:33
Message-ID: 20150423152933.GB25323@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 05:02:19PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> 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).

No question that DO IGNORE sounds awkward. DO NOTHING also matches
CREATE RULE --- another plus.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2015-04-23 15:38:57 Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table.
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2015-04-23 15:27:57 Re: tablespaces inside $PGDATA considered harmful