| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT syntax issues |
| Date: | 2015-04-28 14:44:15 |
| Message-ID: | 20150428144415.GE19123@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-04-28 10:40:10 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Andres Freund (andres(at)anarazel(dot)de) wrote:
> > On 2015-04-28 16:36:28 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> > > I am also very sure that every time I'll write this statement I will have to
> > > look into manual for the names of TARGET and EXCLUDED because they don't
> > > seem intuitive to me at all (especially the EXCLUDED).
> >
> > Same here. I don't understand why 'CONFLICTING' would be more ambiguous
> > than EXCLUDED (as Peter argued earlier). Especially given that the whole
> > syntax is called ON CONFLICT.
>
> Any way we can alias it? Both of those strike me as annoyingly long and
> if we could allow an alias then people can do whatever they want...
>
> No, I haven't got any suggestion on how to do that. :)
>
> It's also something we can probably improve on in the future...
I earlier suggested NEW/OLD. I still think that's not too bad as I don't
buy the argument that they're too associated with rules.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-04-28 14:46:52 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT syntax issues |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-04-28 14:40:10 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT syntax issues |