| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Anssi Kääriäinen <anssi(dot)kaariainen(at)thl(dot)fi>, 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: | 2014-11-24 21:03:41 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZS4HHJFkuqPOSWe_snnrVqaF3ipFBCtZxTbC8R35scOPQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 6:26 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
>> What do other people think? Should RETURNING project updated tuples as
>> well as inserted tuples, as described here?
>
> I think it should.
Looks like the consensus is that we should have RETURNING project
updated tuples too, then.
I've already written the code to do this (and to report an "UPSERT"
command tag), which is very straightforward. The next revision will
have this behavior. However, I'm going to wait a little while longer
before formally publishing a new revision.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-11-24 21:04:00 | Re: postgresql.auto.conf comments |
| Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2014-11-24 20:47:09 | Re: postgresql.auto.conf comments |