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

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin(at)geoff(dot)dj>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT IGNORE (and UPDATE) 3.0
Date: 2015-04-23 15:02:19
Message-ID: 20150423150219.GA2306@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2015-04-23 15:52:40 +0100, Geoff Winkless wrote:
> When I set out I was really only hoping to express a preference as a user;
> on balance I would really rather not have DO IGNORE, if it were possible to
> avoid, because it's really ugly, but DO UPDATE/DO NOTHING I could just
> about cope with (and means you don't need to add IGNORE as a keyword,
> win!), although it still mildly pains me that there's an additional
> unnecessary word.

Yea, DO NOTHING is a good alternative. And I do like we're adding one
keyword less (which is also good for the parser's
size/performance).

DO {UPDATE ... | NOTHING | LOCK} doesn't sound too bad to me (yes, LOCK
doesn't exist yet, except by writing UPDATE .. WHERE false ;)).

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2015-04-23 15:04:33 Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table.
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2015-04-23 15:00:43 Re: tablespaces inside $PGDATA considered harmful