| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(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: | 2015-05-07 17:37:22 |
| Message-ID: | 20150507173722.GD12950@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-05-07 16:15:18 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 05/07/2015 12:01 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >6. The tablename and EXCLUDED? Possibility with the ability to specify
> > an AS for INSERT INTO foo AS whatever?
>
> If we don't allow "AS whatever", and you create a table called "excluded",
> you're stuck with the ambiguity in the DO UPDATE statement as you can't
> alias either one. So we have to add support for "INSERT INTO foo AS
> whatever", if we go with <tablename> and EXCLUDED.
>
> Does anyone see a problem with "INSERT INTO foo AS whatever"? It seems
> pretty straightforward to implement.
I don't see a problem at all, with one exception: If we want the AS to
be optional like in a bunch of other places, we have to either promote
VALUES to a reserved keyword, only accept unreserved keywords, or play
precedence games. I think it'd be perfectly fine to not make AS
optional.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-05-07 17:41:04 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT syntax issues |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-05-07 16:06:11 | Re: BRIN range operator class |