From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Making joins involving ctid work for the benefit of UPSERT |
Date: | 2014-07-18 18:14:34 |
Message-ID: | CAM3SWZQC+TNeNQv_wCtZ5jUVJQMsE+QQEPTVEOPBFL7rT=e3Lg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I don't see why you'd need such a node at all if we had a fully builtin
> UPSERT. The whole stuff with ON CONFLICT SELECT FOR UPDATE and then
> UPDATE ... FROM c CONFLICTS is too complicated and exposes stuff that
> barely anybody will understand, let alone use correctly in queries they
> write themselves.
I accept that there will be a need for certain restrictions. Most
obviously, if you update the target table referencing a CTE like this,
not using the special CONFLICTS clause in the UPDATE (or DELETE) is an
error. And as I mentioned, you may only join the projected duplicates
to the UPDATE ModifyTable - an attempt to join any more relations is
an error. In short, this *is* a fully built-in upsert.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Petr Jelinek | 2014-07-18 18:20:32 | Re: Built-in binning functions |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-07-18 18:06:08 | Re: Making joins involving ctid work for the benefit of UPSERT |