Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}
Date: 2014-10-24 17:18:34
Message-ID: 544A89EA.7070205@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 10/24/2014 10:04 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> As far as syntax goes, I thought the INSERT .. ON CONFLICT UPDATE
> syntax proposed upthread was the best of any mentioned thus far. The
> MERGE-based syntaxes proposed upthread were crazily verbose for no
> discernable benefit.

For those of us who haven't followed every post in this thread, is there
somewhere I can see the proposed syntax?

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2014-10-24 17:21:51 Re: pg_background (and more parallelism infrastructure patches)
Previous Message Jim Nasby 2014-10-24 17:13:09 Re: pg_background (and more parallelism infrastructure patches)