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

On 30 September 2014 19:49, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> On 09/30/2014 11:20 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>>> > For example, this patch for UPSERT doesn't support updatable views.
>>> > But I can't see anyone that didn't read the patch would know that.
>> By reading the CREATE VIEW docs. Maybe there could stand to be a
>> compatibility note in the main INSERT command, but I didn't want to do
>> that as long as things were up in the air. It might be the case that
>> we figure out good behavior for updatable views.
>
> All of these things sound like good ideas for documentation
> improvements, but hardly anything which should block the patch. It has
> documentation, more than we'd require for a lot of other patches, and
> it's not like the 9.5 release is next month.

We won't get consensus simply by saying "Would you like a fast upsert
feature?" because everyone says Yes to that.

A clear description of the feature being added is necessary to agree
its acceptance. When we implement a SQL Standard feature, we can just
look in the standard to see how it should work and compare. When we go
off-piste, we need more info to make sure we know what we are getting
as well as why we are not getting something from the Standard.

I have not suggested I would block the patch because it doesn't have
docs. I have pointed out that the lack of consensus about the patch is
because nobody knows what it contains, which others agreed with. My
request was, and is, a proposed mechanism to *unblock* a very
obviously stalled patch.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services