| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} |
| Date: | 2014-10-09 08:56:39 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZTmSmFOtGGT7Bwm4MzmqkoWG24WxunjN-Rk=czGDXYXfA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> YES, which is why I specifically requested the ability to reference
> "the incoming data".
My point is that people are not really inclined to use an alias in
UPDATEs in general when referring to the target. The thing that seems
special (and worthy of special qualification) is the reference to what
you call the "incoming data", and what I've called "tuples proposed
for insertion" (after being affected by any before row triggers).
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-10-09 08:58:29 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-10-09 08:53:56 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} |