| From: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} |
| Date: | 2014-10-08 20:29:43 |
| Message-ID: | 54359EB7.5000300@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/10/14 11:28, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:36 AM, Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> wrote:
>> But the
>> MERGE syntax, to me, strongly implies that insertion doesn't begin
>> before determining whether a conflict exists or not.
>
> I think you're right. Another strike against the MERGE syntax, then,
> since as I said we cannot even know what to check prior to having
> before row insert triggers fire.
>
True, but to me it also seems to be strike against using INSERT for this
as I don't really see how you can make triggers work in a sane way if
the UPSERT is implemented as part of INSERT (at least I haven't seen any
proposal that I would consider sane from the user point of view).
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2014-10-08 20:29:58 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-10-08 20:26:37 | Re: UPSERT wiki page, and SQL MERGE syntax |