Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add support for INSERT ... ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING/UPDATE.
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add support for INSERT ... ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING/UPDATE. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAM3SWZSu88Kbu_htJT1FfTWUkfaSd+8Q+oArbyX+SE5i2KPJ0w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add support for INSERT ... ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING/UPDATE. (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add support for INSERT ...
ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING/UPDATE.
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I am not really sure that it was a good idea to invent > this command tag. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was a *bad* idea --- > what will happen if we ever create a statement actually named UPSERT? Why would we invent a statement actually named UPSERT? > I think we should fix this by ripping out the variant tag, not trying > to propagate it everywhere it would need to go. Cute ideas are not > the same as good ideas. I don't feel particularly strongly about it one way or the other. The way the command tag reports number of rows affected beside the INSERT tag in psql is relevant. If some of those rows were actually updated, that could mislead. I'm not saying that it outweighs your concern, but it was the reason for inventing a variant tag, and it is a consideration. -- Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: