Re: Making joins involving ctid work for the benefit of UPSERT

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Making joins involving ctid work for the benefit of UPSERT
Date: 2014-07-18 18:14:34
Message-ID: CAM3SWZQC+TNeNQv_wCtZ5jUVJQMsE+QQEPTVEOPBFL7rT=e3Lg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I don't see why you'd need such a node at all if we had a fully builtin
> UPSERT. The whole stuff with ON CONFLICT SELECT FOR UPDATE and then
> UPDATE ... FROM c CONFLICTS is too complicated and exposes stuff that
> barely anybody will understand, let alone use correctly in queries they
> write themselves.

I accept that there will be a need for certain restrictions. Most
obviously, if you update the target table referencing a CTE like this,
not using the special CONFLICTS clause in the UPDATE (or DELETE) is an
error. And as I mentioned, you may only join the projected duplicates
to the UPDATE ModifyTable - an attempt to join any more relations is
an error. In short, this *is* a fully built-in upsert.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Petr Jelinek 2014-07-18 18:20:32 Re: Built-in binning functions
Previous Message Andres Freund 2014-07-18 18:06:08 Re: Making joins involving ctid work for the benefit of UPSERT