Re: doc: Clarify what "excluded" represents for INSERT ON CONFLICT

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
Date: 2022-07-14 19:34:54
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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
> attached.

Patch applied to all supported versions.

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>

Indecision is a decision. Inaction is an action. Mark Batterson

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
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