Re: ON CONFLICT issues around whole row vars,

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ON CONFLICT issues around whole row vars,
Date: 2015-10-01 23:55:23
Message-ID: CAM3SWZRBX+FhThpggGJ23JvLwW97UOnQ_41jcPUeFWRwjPFSsw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2015-10-01 16:26:07 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> FWIW, I think that this technically wasn't a bug
>
> Meh. In which scenario would do a policy applied to EXCLUDED actually
> anything reasonable?

I agree that it's very unlikely to matter. Consistency is something
that is generally valued, though.

I'm not going to object if you want to continue with committing
something that changes excluded + RLS. I was just explaining my view
of the matter.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2015-10-02 00:12:32 Re: ON CONFLICT issues around whole row vars,
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2015-10-01 23:53:16 Re: ON CONFLICT issues around whole row vars,