| From: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin(at)geoff(dot)dj>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT IGNORE (and UPDATE) 3.0 |
| Date: | 2015-04-23 12:47:31 |
| Message-ID: | 5538E9E3.3020202@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 23/04/15 14:34, Geoff Winkless wrote:
> Apologies for butting in but can I (as a user) express a preference as a
> user against DO?
>
> Firstly, it looks horrible. And what's to stop me having "SELECT true AS
> do" in the where clause (as per your UPDATE objection)?
>
DO is already reserved keyword. There is also some precedence for this
in CREATE RULE. But I agree that it's not ideal syntax.
> Shouldn't UPDATE be a reserved keyword anyway? AIUI ANSI suggests so.
>
> http://developer.mimer.se/validator/sql-reserved-words.tml
>
> I had always assumed it was; anyone who produced a query for me that
> contained update in an unusual context would get slapped heavily.
Postgres currently has UPDATE as unreserved keyword and more importantly
IGNORE is not keyword at all so making it a new reserved keyword is not
nice at all.
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-04-23 12:51:21 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT IGNORE (and UPDATE) 3.0 |
| Previous Message | Geoff Winkless | 2015-04-23 12:34:07 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT IGNORE (and UPDATE) 3.0 |