| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT syntax issues |
| Date: | 2015-04-28 16:42:54 |
| Message-ID: | 20150428164254.GS30322@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Peter Geoghegan (pg(at)heroku(dot)com) wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > On 2015-04-28 16:36:28 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> >> I am also very sure that every time I'll write this statement I will have to
> >> look into manual for the names of TARGET and EXCLUDED because they don't
> >> seem intuitive to me at all (especially the EXCLUDED).
> >
> > Same here. I don't understand why 'CONFLICTING' would be more ambiguous
> > than EXCLUDED (as Peter argued earlier). Especially given that the whole
> > syntax is called ON CONFLICT.
>
> Because the TARGET and EXCLUDED tuples conflict with each other -
> they're both conflicting.
I agree with that, but how are NEW and OLD ambiguous? NEW is clearly
the tuple being added, while OLD is clearly the existing tuple.
Now that I think about it though, where that'd get ugly is using this
command *inside* a trigger function, which I can certainly imagine
people will want to do...
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-04-28 16:45:41 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT syntax issues |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-04-28 16:40:04 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT syntax issues |