| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: MERGE ... RETURNING |
| Date: | 2023-07-12 23:48:29 |
| Message-ID: | 425bd4540c7bf6f35bf3afbef012fbf360d13764.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2023-07-12 at 03:47 +0200, Vik Fearing wrote:
> There is no RETURNING clause in Standard SQL, and the way they would
> do
> this is:
>
> SELECT ...
> FROM OLD TABLE (
> MERGE ...
> ) AS m
>
> The rules for that for MERGE are well defined.
I only see OLD TABLE referenced as part of a trigger definition. Where
is it defined for MERGE?
In any case, as long as the SQL standard doesn't conflict, then we're
fine. And it looks unlikely to cause a conflict right now that wouldn't
also be a conflict with our existing RETURNING clause elsewhere, so I'm
not seeing a problem here.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tristan Partin | 2023-07-12 23:53:03 | Re: Meson build updates |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-07-12 23:30:51 | Re: Meson build updates |