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

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Anssi Kääriäinen <anssi(dot)kaariainen(at)thl(dot)fi>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, 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: 2014-11-24 14:26:09
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaaF=ok6HJ3edYdC4R4j-PYdEkJfdJevt24jEDJa+WQvQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> What do other people think? Should RETURNING project updated tuples as
> well as inserted tuples, as described here?

I think it should.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2014-11-24 14:33:28 Re: Turning recovery.conf into GUCs
Previous Message Robert Haas 2014-11-24 14:16:31 Re: [v9.5] Custom Plan API