| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE |
| Date: | 2013-10-15 21:27:59 |
| Message-ID: | 20131015212759.GS5300@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-10-15 11:23:44 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> (although, AFAICT it doesn't allow for the implementation of one of my
> personal desires, which is UPDATE ... ON NOT FOUND INSERT, for cases
> where updates are expected to occur 95% of the time, but that's another
> topic. Unless "rejects" for an Update could be the leftover rows, but
> then we're getting into full MERGE.).
FWIW I can't see the above syntax as something working very well - you
fundamentally have to SET every column and it only makes sense in
UPDATEs that provably affect only one row.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-10-15 21:31:04 | Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-10-15 21:25:01 | Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE |