| From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Viktor Holmberg <v(at)viktorh(dot)net> |
| Cc: | jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
| Subject: | Re: ON CONFLICT DO SELECT (take 3) |
| Date: | 2026-02-11 16:11:15 |
| Message-ID: | CAEZATCUPAfUgTzEK8Z0ixCXqdSWZeznD37j7naYsMrVS9uz_Wg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
Regards,
Dean
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zsolt Parragi | 2026-02-11 16:26:11 | Re: Improving GUC prefix ownership for extensions |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2026-02-11 16:07:37 | Re: Improving GUC prefix ownership for extensions |