From: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Y Liu <yliu11(at)yahoo(dot)com>, "pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: UPSERT as a table name is confusing |
Date: | 2022-08-15 13:52:56 |
Message-ID: | 5f145be3-5b7e-8a61-6773-4ca542fc8ebc@postgresql.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-www |
On 8/15/22 8:41 AM, Y Liu wrote:
> RE: https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/UPSERT
> <https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/UPSERT>
>
> It is really confusing to use UPSERT as a table name in a sql to demo
> the usage of INSERT INTO UPSERT...ON CONFLICT. How about using a
> different table name to show the same thing? Just a suggestion.
The page in reference has the following line at the top:
"This Wiki page was only maintained until a few weeks before commit,
where the patch further evolved in some minor aspects (most notably, the
syntax became ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE/NOTHING). It is now only of historic
interest."
(though the wiki is editable).
There are several examples in the docs here with less confusing labeling:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-insert.html
Thanks,
Jonathan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Vivek Suraiya | 2022-08-16 13:32:59 | Column Alias Not Allowed In Grouping Function |
Previous Message | Y Liu | 2022-08-15 12:41:07 | UPSERT as a table name is confusing |