Re: MERGE ... RETURNING
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: MERGE ... RETURNING |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 0278f03e955ef21d2e3fe615f63db299346bfa7a.camel@j-davis.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: MERGE ... RETURNING (Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: MERGE ... RETURNING
Re: MERGE ... RETURNING |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2023-08-23 at 11:58 +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote: > Updated version attached, fixing an uninitialized-variable warning > from the cfbot. I took another look and I'm still not comfortable with the special IsMergeSupportFunction() functions. I don't object necessarily -- if someone else wants to commit it, they can -- but I don't plan to commit it in this form. Can we revisit the idea of a per-WHEN RETURNING clause? The returning clauses could be treated kind of like a UNION, which makes sense because it really is a union of different results (the returned tuples from an INSERT are different than the returned tuples from a DELETE). You can just add constants to the target lists to distinguish which WHEN clause they came from. I know you rejected that approach early on, but perhaps it's worth discussing further? Regards, Jeff Davis
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: