Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT IGNORE (and UPDATE) 3.0

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Geoff Winkless
Тема Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT IGNORE (and UPDATE) 3.0
Дата
Msg-id CAEzk6fdVZUgy9mCz19zhtSbKwotOhHR7mFXGmLy8qQJYBCC5gw@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT IGNORE (and UPDATE) 3.0  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Ответы Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT IGNORE (and UPDATE) 3.0
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения
On 23 April 2015 at 13:51, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
On April 23, 2015 3:34:07 PM GMT+03:00, Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin@geoff.dj> wrote:
​
​>​
 And what's to stop me having "SELECT true
​
AS
>do" in the where clause (as per your UPDATE objection)?

A syntax error. DO is a reserved keyword. Update is just unreserved (and thus can be used as a column label). Ignore is unreserved with the patch and was unreserved before.  We obviously can make both reserved, but of so we have to do it for real, not by hiding the conflicts

Sorry, I misunderstood: so it's not the fact that it can't be used as a column label (because it can) but the fact that it can't then be referenced within a WHERE clause without quoting
. Which is in itself utterly horrible, but that's a separate argument and I can at least now understand your point.​

So I could end up with

INSERT INTO mytable (somevalue) VALUES (999) ON CONFLICT ('myindex') WHERE update UPDATE update=1

but I would have to do

INSERT INTO mytable (somevalue) VALUES (999) ON CONFLICT ('myindex') WHERE "do" UPDATE "do"=1

?

​
>Apologies for butting in but can I (as a user) express a preference as
>a
​ 
user against DO?

Sure. If you propose an alternative ;)

​Maybe I'm misreading it, but isn't index_predicate meant to be inside the brackets?


certainly states that.

It's not one right now. And ignore isn't a keyword at all atm.

​As I said, it's my personal belief that anyone using keywords (of any kind) unquoted deserves what they get, but I see your point.​
 

I think I object to the fact that you're talking about adding extra syntactic sugar to work around a parser-implementation problem, not an actual syntax problem (since UPDATE SET is unambiguous, isn't it?).

(Please don't top post)

Mea culpa. I blame google :)​

FWIW "DO IGNORE" just reads disgustingly. If you do finally go down the DO route, perhaps "DO NOTHING"? :)
 
Geoff

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: