| From: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Viktor Holmberg <v(at)viktorh(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Allow ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE to return EXCLUDED values |
| Date: | 2025-10-08 09:20:48 |
| Message-ID: | 1d4b3d42-ccdc-4555-b4df-268d6daf97a5@postgresfriends.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 07/10/2025 23:52, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 at 14:56, Viktor Holmberg <v(at)viktorh(dot)net> wrote:
>> A maybe bigger question, is it nice that EXCLUDED is null when no conflict occurred? I can see the logic, but I think ergonomics wise it’d be nicer to have the proposed values in EXCLUDED, no matter what happened later. Then one can check EXCLUDED.value = NEW.value to see if one’s changes were added, for example.
> Hmm, I'm not sure. I think it would be counter-intuitive to have
> non-null EXCLUDED values for rows that weren't excluded, and I think
> it's just as easy to check what values were added either way.
Agreed. EXCLUDED should be null or even inaccessible if the row wasn't
excluded.
--
Vik Fearing
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2025-10-08 09:45:33 | Re: Logical Replication of sequences |
| Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2025-10-08 09:11:27 | Re: Logical Replication of sequences |