| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT syntax issues |
| Date: | 2015-04-28 19:40:38 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZQYomh8u+3zVb9fOXyiTY=_G6sEQFuR5LEM5dp2A6Baig@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:36 AM, David G. Johnston
<david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> This example exemplifies the poorness of the proposed wording, IMO:
>
>
> [...]
> SET dname = EXCLUDED.dname || ' (formerly ' || TARGET.dname || ')'
>
> NEW.dname || '(formerly ' || OLD.dname || ')' reads perfectly well.
>
> Yes, this is an isolated example...but am I missing the fact that there is a
> third tuple that needs to be referenced?
>
> If there are only two the choices of NEW and OLD seem to be both easily
> learned and readable.
Whatever Andres and/or Heikki want is what I'll agree to. Honestly, I
just don't care anymore.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2015-04-28 19:41:33 | Re: cache invalidation for PL/pgsql functions |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-04-28 19:35:55 | Re: ATSimpleRecursion() and inheritance foreign parents |