| From: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: MERGE ... RETURNING |
| Date: | 2023-07-12 01:47:24 |
| Message-ID: | 71d8de80-91cb-aaf6-ee65-57ea8e3a1776@postgresfriends.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/12/23 02:43, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Sun, 2023-01-22 at 19:58 +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>
>> (We do have to keep our fingers
>> crossed that they will decide to use the same RETURNING syntax as we
>> do
>> in this patch, of course.)
>
> Do we have a reason to think that they will accept something similar?
We have reason to think that they won't care at all.
There is no RETURNING clause in Standard SQL, and the way they would do
this is:
SELECT ...
FROM OLD TABLE (
MERGE ...
) AS m
The rules for that for MERGE are well defined.
--
Vik Fearing
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-07-12 01:59:48 | Re: DROP DATABASE is interruptible |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2023-07-12 01:37:22 | Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER |