| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(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: | 2014-10-16 18:32:05 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZTt_jDv-9iE2Z7=KmbQ=EXj=p1+eof2YW9Hmb0mSx46MA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> It is? In any case, I'm working on a revision with this syntax:
By the way, in my next revision, barring any objections, the ON
CONFLICT (column/expression) syntax is mandatory in the case of ON
CONFLICT UPDATE, and optional in the case of ON CONFLICT IGNORE. If we
end up supporting exclusion constraints, it's pretty clear that
they're only useful with ON CONFLICT IGNORE anyway, and so I guess we
don't have to worry about naming those. I guess there would be some
advantage to naming an exclusion constraint directly even for the
IGNORE case (which is another reason I considered naming an index
directly), but it doesn't seem that important.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-10-16 18:36:35 | Re: WIP: dynahash replacement for buffer table |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2014-10-16 18:27:42 | 2014-10 CommitFest |