Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT syntax issues

* Andres Freund (andres(at)anarazel(dot)de) wrote:
> On 2015-04-28 10:40:10 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * 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...
>
> I earlier suggested NEW/OLD. I still think that's not too bad as I don't
> buy the argument that they're too associated with rules.

+1, NEW/OLD seem pretty natural and I'm not worried about what they look
like in rules, and their usage in triggers matches up with what they'd
mean here, I'd think.

Thanks!

Stephen