Re: ON CONFLICT DO SELECT (take 3)

From: Viktor Holmberg <v(at)viktorh(dot)net>
To: Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: ON CONFLICT DO SELECT (take 3)
Date: 2025-11-19 19:54:58
Message-ID: bb608db1-90e5-4539-a36d-278cb1173945@Spark
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 19 Nov 2025 at 18:19 +0100, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 at 16:51, Viktor Holmberg <v(at)viktorh(dot)net> wrote:
> >
> > For the CASE default, elog(ERROR, "unrecognized LockClauseStrength %d” that was removed.
> > Would this now trigger a compile time error/warning? And are you supposed to get 0 warnings when compiling?
> That shouldn't trigger a warning, because there is a case block for
> every enum element, and yes there should be 0 compiler warnings.
Yes sorry, that’s what I meant! In that case, nice that those potential future errors are moved from runtime to compile time.
> > (I get a large amount of warnings "warning: 'pg_restrict' macro redefined" on master, but that could just be something with my environment)
> I haven't seen that before, but there's this thread:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CA%2BFpmFdoa7O7yS3k7ZtqvA%2BhNWUA6YvJy6VvdYX1sGsryVQBNQ%40mail.gmail.com
>
> If you re-run configure, does it go away?
>
> Regards,
> Dean
Yes, re-configuring made the warning go away. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mircea Cadariu 2025-11-19 19:57:11 Re: pg_recvlogical: Prevent flushed data from being re-sent after restarting replication
Previous Message Robert Haas 2025-11-19 19:49:29 Re: Resetting recovery target parameters in pg_createsubscriber