| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2014-10-09 08:58:29 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZS0wmy_ukmpSzrGPQP2WxPTtoV8F+J5zb7h=-jcBMNuJg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> My point is that people are not really inclined to use an alias in
> UPDATEs in general when referring to the target. The thing that seems
> special (and worthy of special qualification) is the reference to what
> you call the "incoming data", and what I've called "tuples proposed
> for insertion" (after being affected by any before row triggers).
For simple cases, you might not even bother with CONFLICTING() - you
might find it easier to just repeat the constant in the INSERT and
UPDATE parts of the query.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-10-09 09:34:48 | Re: Deferring some AtStart* allocations? |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-10-09 08:56:39 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} |