| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im> |
| 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: | 2023-10-24 19:10:59 |
| Message-ID: | 0278f03e955ef21d2e3fe615f63db299346bfa7a.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2023-08-23 at 11:58 +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> Updated version attached, fixing an uninitialized-variable warning
> from the cfbot.
I took another look and I'm still not comfortable with the special
IsMergeSupportFunction() functions. I don't object necessarily -- if
someone else wants to commit it, they can -- but I don't plan to commit
it in this form.
Can we revisit the idea of a per-WHEN RETURNING clause? The returning
clauses could be treated kind of like a UNION, which makes sense
because it really is a union of different results (the returned tuples
from an INSERT are different than the returned tuples from a DELETE).
You can just add constants to the target lists to distinguish which
WHEN clause they came from.
I know you rejected that approach early on, but perhaps it's worth
discussing further?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2023-10-24 20:13:01 | Re: [PATCH] Improve amcheck to also check UNIQUE constraint in btree index. |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2023-10-24 19:05:50 | Re: Bug: RLS policy FOR SELECT is used to check new rows |