Re: BUG #16140: View with INSERT, DO INSTEAD, and ON CONFLICT causes an error

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: bryan(dot)dicarlo(at)gmail(dot)com, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: BUG #16140: View with INSERT, DO INSTEAD, and ON CONFLICT causes an error
Date: 2019-12-05 01:10:20
Message-ID: CAH2-Wzmfmx_YpAEFGS1rhG_-hdkGfO0yx0hZhxYD0+ww3A5RZA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 10:26 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> You should have written "EXCLUDED.value" not "NEW.value". There is
> a bug here, but it's that the parser accepted this rule. I'm guessing
> that the parsing logic for ON CONFLICT didn't consider the possibility
> that NEW and OLD for a rule would already be in the range table.

I must admit that I have zero recollection of this aspect of the ON
CONFLICT work. Do you think that this would be difficult to fix?

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David G. Johnston 2019-12-05 01:15:55 Re: BUG #16149: Prepared COPY queries always report 0 parameters when described
Previous Message Justin Pryzby 2019-12-05 00:38:23 Re: BUG #16111: Unexpected query compilation error “negative bitmapset member not allowed”