| From: | Gareth Palmer <gareth(at)internetnz(dot)net(dot)nz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Implement INSERT SET syntax |
| Date: | 2019-11-21 23:24:15 |
| Message-ID: | 4713C5F8-868C-4223-86F4-D3661387F5CE@internetnz.net.nz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 19/11/2019, at 5:05 PM, Gareth Palmer <gareth(at)internetnz(dot)net(dot)nz> wrote:
>>
>> Since nobody has objected to this, I'm supposing that there's general
>> consensus that that design sketch is OK, and we can move on to critiquing
>> implementation details. I took a look, and didn't like much of what I saw.
Attached is an updated patch with for_locking_clause added, test-cases
re-use existing tables and the comments and documentation have been
expanded.
>> I'm setting this back to Waiting on Author.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| insert-set-v4.patch | application/octet-stream | 15.6 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-11-22 00:13:20 | Re: obsolete example |
| Previous Message | Euler Taveira | 2019-11-21 23:19:56 | Re: obsolete example |