| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im>, Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: MERGE ... RETURNING |
| Date: | 2024-03-06 20:03:37 |
| Message-ID: | CAHyXU0y3R+7Nsj95edyWdOJHWJ1v=fU69gLP8sqO0aC87wLUCA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 1:49 PM Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Can we get some input on whether the current MERGE ... RETURNING patch
> is the right approach from a language standpoint?
>
MERGE_CLAUSE_NUMBER() seems really out of place to me, it feels out of
place to identify output set by number rather than some kind of name. Did
not see a lot of support for that position though.
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Laurenz Albe | 2024-03-06 20:31:17 | Re: Reducing the log spam |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2024-03-06 19:55:46 | Re: Transaction timeout |