From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Insert Documentation - Returning Clause and Order |
Date: | 2020-12-10 14:19:31 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwbgdJ_xNn0YHWGR0D+v+3mHGVqJpG_Ejt96KHoJjs6DkA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thursday, December 10, 2020, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 9:10 PM David G. Johnston
> <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Hey,
> >
> > Would it be accurate to add the following sentence to the INSERT
> documentation under "Outputs"?
> >
> > "...inserted or updated by the command." For a multiple-values
> insertion, the order of output rows will match the order that rows are
> presented in the values or query clause.
>
> Postgres's current implementation may be doing so, but I don't think
> that can be guaranteed in possible implementations. I don't think
> restricting choice of implementation to guarantee that is a good idea
> either.
>
>
Yeah, the ongoing work on parallel inserts would seem to be an issue. We
should probably document that though. And maybe as part of parallel
inserts patch provide a user-specifiable way to ask for such a guarantee if
needed. ‘Insert returning ordered”
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Khandekar | 2020-12-10 14:31:31 | Speeding up GIST index creation for tsvectors |
Previous Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2020-12-10 13:50:29 | Re: Parallel Inserts in CREATE TABLE AS |