Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT IGNORE (and UPDATE) 3.0

On 23 April 2015 at 13:51, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:

> On April 23, 2015 3:34:07 PM GMT+03:00, Geoff Winkless <
> pgsqladmin(at)geoff(dot)dj> wrote:
> ​
> ​>​
> And what's to stop me having "SELECT true
> ​
> AS

>do" in the where clause (as per your UPDATE objection)?
>
> A syntax error. DO is a reserved keyword. Update is just unreserved (and
> thus can be used as a column label). Ignore is unreserved with the patch
> and was unreserved before. We obviously can make both reserved, but of so
> we have to do it for real, not by hiding the conflicts
>

Sorry, I misunderstood: so it's not the fact that it can't be used as a
column label (because it can) but the fact that it can't then be referenced
within a WHERE clause without quoting
. Which is in itself utterly horrible, but that's a separate argument and I
can at least now understand your point.​

So I could end up with

INSERT INTO mytable (somevalue) VALUES (999) ON CONFLICT ('myindex') WHERE
update UPDATE update=1

but I would have to do

INSERT INTO mytable (somevalue) VALUES (999) ON CONFLICT ('myindex') WHERE
"do" UPDATE "do"=1

?

​
> >Apologies for butting in but can I (as a user) express a preference as
> >a
> ​
> user against DO?
>
> Sure. If you propose an alternative ;)
>

​Maybe I'm misreading it, but isn't index_predicate meant to be inside the
brackets?

http://postgres-benchmarks.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/on-conflict-docs/sql-insert.html

certainly states that.

It's not one right now. And ignore isn't a keyword at all atm.
>

​As I said, it's my personal belief that anyone using keywords (of any
kind) unquoted deserves what they get, but I see your point.​

I think I object to the fact that you're talking about adding extra
syntactic sugar to work around a parser-implementation problem, not an
actual syntax problem (since UPDATE SET is unambiguous, isn't it?).

(Please don't top post)
>

Mea culpa. I blame google :)​

FWIW "DO IGNORE" just reads disgustingly. If you do finally go down the DO
route, perhaps "DO NOTHING"? :)

Geoff