| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Support UPDATE table SET(*)=... |
| Date: | 2015-04-07 19:01:38 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZR8QsqorECT3AgT4pHAOaUbuR90TZsQYZqYR7nu1HMzLQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> If we were to go in this direction, it would be nice to at the same time
> add a similar whole-record syntax for INSERT. I'm not sure exactly what
> that should look like though. Also, again, we ought to be paying
> attention to how this would match up with UPSERT syntax.
I expressed concern about allowing this for UPSERT [1].
To be fair, VoltDB's new UPSERT statement allows something similar (or
rather mandates it, since you cannot just update some columns), and
that doesn't look wholly unreasonable. I still don't like the idea of
supporting this, though. I'm not aware of any other system allowing
something like this for either MERGE or a non-standard UPSERT.
[1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAM3SWZT=VXBJ7QKAidAmYbU40aP10udSqOOqhViX3Ykj7WBv9A@mail.gmail.com
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-04-07 19:04:50 | Re: Support UPDATE table SET(*)=... |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-04-07 19:00:44 | Re: Support UPDATE table SET(*)=... |