| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: doc: Clarify what "excluded" represents for INSERT ON CONFLICT |
| Date: | 2022-07-09 03:18:43 |
| Message-ID: | Ysjzk2aq9W9slwcY@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 08:11:36AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> That said, I still think that the current wording should be tweak with respect
> to row vs. rows (especially if we continue to call it a table):
>
> Current:
> "The SET and WHERE clauses in ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE have access to the
> existing row using the table's name (or an alias), and to [rows] proposed
> for insertion using the special excluded table."
>
> Change [rows] to:
>
> "the row"
>
>
> I'm undecided whether "FROM excluded" should be something that works - but I
> also don't think it would actually be used in any case.
I found two places where a singular "row" would be better, doc patch
attached.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Indecision is a decision. Inaction is an action. Mark Batterson
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| exclude.diff | text/x-diff | 1.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-07-09 05:27:31 | Re: Compilation issue on Solaris. |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2022-07-09 02:55:55 | Re: doc: Clarify Routines and Extension Membership |