|From:||Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>|
|To:||Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE and RLS|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
* Dean Rasheed (dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> On 26 February 2015 at 09:50, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On 26 February 2015 at 05:43, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> >> I wonder if there are some documentation updates which need to be done
> >> for this also? I'm planning to look as I vauguely recall mentioning the
> >> ordering of operations somewhere along the way.
> I couldn't find any mention of the timing of the check in the existing
> documentation, although it does vaguely imply that the check is done
> before inserting any new data. There is an existing paragraph
> describing the timing of USING conditions, so I added a new paragraph
> immediately after that to explain when CHECK expressions are enforced,
> since that seemed like the best place for it.
Ah, ok, I must have been thinking about the USING discussion. Thanks
for adding the paragraph about the CHECK timing.
> >> I also addressed the bitrot from the column-priv leak patch. Would be
> >> great to have you take a look at the latest and let me know if you have
> >> any further comments or suggestions.
> I looked it over again, and I'm happy with these updates, except there
> was a missing "break" in the switch statement in
Oh, thanks for catching that!
> Here's an updated patch.
Excellent, will review.
|Next Message||Tom Lane||2015-03-06 14:31:16||Re: Rethinking pg_dump's function sorting code|
|Previous Message||Stephen Frost||2015-03-06 13:28:33||Re: MD5 authentication needs help|