Re: Making joins involving ctid work for the benefit of UPSERT
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Making joins involving ctid work for the benefit of UPSERT |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20140718182332.GC29260@awork2.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Making joins involving ctid work for the benefit of UPSERT (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Making joins involving ctid work for the benefit of UPSERT
Re: Making joins involving ctid work for the benefit of UPSERT |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-07-18 11:14:34 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.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. Meh. A understandable syntax wouldn't require the pullups with a special scan node and such. I think you're attempting a sort of genericity that's making your (important!) goal much harder to reach. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: