Re: ON CONFLICT DO SELECT (take 3)

On 11 Feb 2026 at 17:11 +0100, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2026 at 14:55, Viktor Holmberg <v(at)viktorh(dot)net> wrote:
> >
> > Looking more at this, I’m quite sure that the p_is_insert field can just be removed?
> > See 0002.
>
> Ah, good idea. Well spotted!
>
> This dates back to c1ca3a1, which removed a similar p_is_update field,
> but noted that using p_is_insert wasn't particularly pretty.
>
> Going back even further, it looks like p_is_insert and p_is_update
> used to be much more widely used, but now we're down to just this one
> place in transformAssignedExpr() that reads p_is_insert, and as you
> say, it can deduce the same information from the exprKind passed to
> it, which is much neater.
>
> Barring objections, I'll push both those shortly.
Certainly no objections from me! Excited to get this in.

/Viktor