Re: MERGE ... RETURNING

From: Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>
Cc: Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: MERGE ... RETURNING
Date: 2023-07-13 17:30:59
Message-ID: CAEZATCW1OdKgup33AY1p+_O7JuMoLauohASmWNgAmHUisPrxvQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 at 17:43, Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> wrote:
>
> There is also the WITH ORDINALITY and FOR ORDINALITY examples.
>

True. I just think "number" is a friendlier, more familiar word than "ordinal".

> So perhaps pg_merge_when_clause_number() would
> > be a better name. It's still quite long, but it's the best I can think
> > of.
>
> How about pg_merge_match_number() or pg_merge_ordinality()?

I think "match_number" is problematic, because it might be a "matched"
or a "not matched" action. "when_clause" is the term used on the MERGE
doc page.

Regards,
Dean

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2023-07-13 18:56:00 Re: Fix search_path for all maintenance commands
Previous Message Dean Rasheed 2023-07-13 17:01:44 Re: MERGE ... RETURNING