| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, walther(at)technowledgy(dot)de, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im>, Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: MERGE ... RETURNING |
| Date: | 2024-03-14 14:04:12 |
| Message-ID: | 202403141404.3qmryqs2ep3s@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2024-Mar-13, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 at 06:44, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > <synopsis>
> > [ WITH <replaceable class="parameter">with_query</replaceable> [, ...] ]
> > MERGE INTO [ ONLY ] <replaceable
> >
> > here the "WITH" part should have "[ RECURSIVE ]"
>
> Actually, no. MERGE doesn't support WITH RECURSIVE.
>
> It's not entirely clear to me why though. I did a quick test, removing
> that restriction in the parse analysis code, and it seemed to work
> fine. Alvaro, do you remember why that restriction is there?
There's no real reason for it, other than I didn't want to have to think
it through; I did suspect that it might Just Work, but I felt I would
have had to come up with more nontrivial test cases than I wanted to
write at the time.
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"People get annoyed when you try to debug them." (Larry Wall)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-03-14 14:15:18 | Re: Reports on obsolete Postgres versions |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2024-03-14 14:03:09 | Re: REVOKE FROM warning on grantor |