| From: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: MERGE ... RETURNING |
| Date: | 2023-07-13 00:03:26 |
| Message-ID: | c56939d9-9bba-3db1-16c9-d99dec3f0f04@postgresfriends.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/13/23 01:48, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-07-12 at 03:47 +0200, Vik Fearing wrote:
>
>> There is no RETURNING clause in Standard SQL, and the way they would
>> do
>> this is:
>>
>> SELECT ...
>> FROM OLD TABLE (
>> MERGE ...
>> ) AS m
>>
>> The rules for that for MERGE are well defined.
>
> I only see OLD TABLE referenced as part of a trigger definition. Where
> is it defined for MERGE?
Look up <data change delta table> for that syntax. For how MERGE
generates those, see 9075-2:2023 Section 14.12 <merge statement> General
Rules 6.b and 6.c.
> In any case, as long as the SQL standard doesn't conflict, then we're
> fine. And it looks unlikely to cause a conflict right now that wouldn't
> also be a conflict with our existing RETURNING clause elsewhere, so I'm
> not seeing a problem here.
I do not see a problem either, which was what I was trying to express
(perhaps poorly). At least not with the syntax. I have not yet tested
that the returned rows match the standard.
--
Vik Fearing
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-07-13 00:12:36 | Re: Support to define custom wait events for extensions |
| Previous Message | chap | 2023-07-13 00:00:47 | Re: CommandStatus from insert returning when using a portal. |