| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: MERGE ... RETURNING |
| Date: | 2023-07-13 16:36:58 |
| Message-ID: | 59d331e5f147256977c9af174dfc219e5a9139a2.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2023-01-09 at 12:29 +0000, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> > Would it be useful to have just the action? Perhaps "WITH ACTION"?
> > My idea is that this would return an enum of INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE
> > (so is "action" the right word?). It seems to me in many situations
> > I would be more likely to care about which of these 3 happened
> > rather than the exact clause that applied. This isn't necessarily
> > meant to be instead of your suggestion because I can imagine
> > wanting to know the exact clause, just an alternative that might
> > suffice in many situations. Using it would also avoid problems
> > arising from editing the query in a way which changes the numbers
> > of the clauses.
> >
>
> Hmm, perhaps that's something that can be added as well. Both use
> cases seem useful.
Can you expand a bit on the use cases for identifying individual WHEN
clauses? I see that it offers a new capability beyond just the action
type, but I'm having trouble thinking of real use cases.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2023-07-13 16:38:03 | Re: MERGE ... RETURNING |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-07-13 16:32:40 | Re: psql: Add role's membership options to the \du+ command |