| From: | Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: MERGE ... RETURNING |
| Date: | 2023-07-06 17:14:31 |
| Message-ID: | CABwTF4UOitwEwiPRmoirkZ=NuCmWhUnfN+ypKz_T6rrSCdX95Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 3:39 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 2023-Jul-05, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> > I expected the .out file to have captured the stdout. I'm gradually,
> > and gladly, re-learning bits of the test infrastructure.
> >
> > The DELETE command tag in the output does not feel appropriate for a
> > COPY command that's using MERGE as the source of the data.
>
> You misread this one :-) The COPY output is there, the tag is not. So
> DELETE is the value from pg_merge_action(), and "1 100" correspond to
> the columns in the the sq_target row that was deleted. The command tag
> is presumably MERGE 1.
:-) That makes more sense. It matches my old mental model. Thanks for
clarifying!
Best regards,
Gurjeet
http://Gurje.et
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2023-07-06 17:20:04 | Re: pgsql: Fix search_path to a safe value during maintenance operations. |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-07-06 17:09:20 | Re: Add more sanity checks around callers of changeDependencyFor() |