| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: UPSERT wiki page, and SQL MERGE syntax |
| Date: | 2014-10-16 18:39:09 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmobx853LHaELU20Tss2jQUJz06rXrND8S5yOyD_keM5q+A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> I want to retain CONFLICTING(), although I'm thinking about changing
> the spelling to EXCLUDED(). While CONFLICTING() is more or less a new
> and unprecedented style of expression, and in general that's something
> to be skeptical of, I think it's appropriate because what we want here
> isn't quite like any existing expression. Using an alias-like syntax
> is misleading, since it implies that are no effects carried from the
> firing of before row insert triggers. It's also trickier to implement
> alias-like referencing.
I think that the general consensus was against that style. I don't
like it, and IIRC a few other people commented as well.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-10-16 18:43:36 | Re: Additional role attributes && superuser review |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-10-16 18:36:35 | Re: WIP: dynahash replacement for buffer table |