From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robins Tharakan <tharakan(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Per row status during INSERT .. ON CONFLICT UPDATE? |
Date: | 2015-05-19 20:21:38 |
Message-ID: | CAM3SWZRTWJP2X_sDbVAGDGp3tqaXFe74_4VPSKLYcQfn=t8X+A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Robins Tharakan <tharakan(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> My use-case is to create an extra row for all UPDATEd rows (only), which is
>> implemented in MSSQL by enveloping the MERGE with an INSERT (MERGE ...
>> OUTPUT $action) WHERE $action = 'UPDATE'.
>
> That could make sense. You can achieve something similar with per-row
> triggers, perhaps.
BTW, be prepared to deal with the updated row (*any* row version) not
being visible to your MVCC snapshot with that pattern in Postgres (at
READ COMMITTED level). It probably won't matter, but it could.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | José Luis Tallón | 2015-05-19 20:33:59 | Re: RFC: Non-user-resettable SET SESSION AUTHORISATION |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-05-19 20:20:25 | Re: Per row status during INSERT .. ON CONFLICT UPDATE? |