| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(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: | 2014-10-10 18:38:31 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZQvVbXPAV6KFRmimBtZOusQZiohpWKQEEZ-Uakv5S-ZHw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> wrote:
> That seems a lot cleaner than the proposal on the Wiki page. If we
> go that route, it makes sense to fire the BEFORE INSERT triggers
> before attempting the insert and then fire BEFORE UPDATE triggers
> before attempting the UPDATE. If either succeeds, I think we
> should fire the corresponding AFTER triggers. We already allow a
> BEFORE triggers to run and then omit the triggering operation
> without an error, so I don't see that as a problem. This makes a
> lot more sense to me than attempting to add a new UPSERT trigger
> type.
You realize that that's exactly what my patch does, right?
AFAICT the only confusion that my patch has is with statement-level
triggers, as discussed on the Wiki page. I think that the row-level
trigger behavior is fine; a lot more thought has gone into it.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2014-10-10 18:44:29 | Re: UPSERT wiki page, and SQL MERGE syntax |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2014-10-10 18:30:13 | Re: UPSERT wiki page, and SQL MERGE syntax |