| 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
| 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 |