| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT syntax issues |
| Date: | 2015-04-28 14:40:10 |
| Message-ID: | 20150428144010.GP30322@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Andres Freund (andres(at)anarazel(dot)de) wrote:
> On 2015-04-28 16:36:28 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> > I am also very sure that every time I'll write this statement I will have to
> > look into manual for the names of TARGET and EXCLUDED because they don't
> > seem intuitive to me at all (especially the EXCLUDED).
>
> Same here. I don't understand why 'CONFLICTING' would be more ambiguous
> than EXCLUDED (as Peter argued earlier). Especially given that the whole
> syntax is called ON CONFLICT.
Any way we can alias it? Both of those strike me as annoyingly long and
if we could allow an alias then people can do whatever they want...
No, I haven't got any suggestion on how to do that. :)
It's also something we can probably improve on in the future...
Thanks!
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-04-28 14:44:15 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT syntax issues |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-04-28 14:38:38 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT syntax issues |