|From:||Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>|
|To:||"David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: doc: Clarify what "excluded" represents for INSERT ON CONFLICT|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 11:18:43PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 08:11:36AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> > That said, I still think that the current wording should be tweak with respect
> > to row vs. rows (especially if we continue to call it a table):
> > Current:
> > "The SET and WHERE clauses in ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE have access to the
> > existing row using the table's name (or an alias), and to [rows] proposed
> > for insertion using the special excluded table."
> > Change [rows] to:
> > "the row"
> > I'm undecided whether "FROM excluded" should be something that works - but I
> > also don't think it would actually be used in any case.
> I found two places where a singular "row" would be better, doc patch
Patch applied to all supported versions.
Indecision is a decision. Inaction is an action. Mark Batterson
|Next Message||Bruce Momjian||2022-07-14 19:44:48||Re: doc: Clarify Savepoint Behavior|
|Previous Message||Bruce Momjian||2022-07-14 19:18:11||Re: doc: Bring mention of unique index forced transaction wait behavior outside of the internal section|