Re: MERGE ... RETURNING
От | Vik Fearing |
---|---|
Тема | Re: MERGE ... RETURNING |
Дата | |
Msg-id | d414db4b-3ba2-ff3a-f994-1d4eb43c3f87@postgresfriends.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: MERGE ... RETURNING (Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: MERGE ... RETURNING
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/9/23 13:29, Dean Rasheed wrote: > On Sun, 8 Jan 2023 at 20:09, Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Would it be useful to have just the action? Perhaps "WITH ACTION"? My idea is that this would return an enum of INSERT,UPDATE, DELETE (so is "action" the right word?). It seems to me in many situations I would be more likely to careabout which of these 3 happened rather than the exact clause that applied. This isn't necessarily meant to be insteadof your suggestion because I can imagine wanting to know the exact clause, just an alternative that might sufficein many situations. Using it would also avoid problems arising from editing the query in a way which changes the numbersof the clauses. >> > > Hmm, perhaps that's something that can be added as well. Both use > cases seem useful. Bikeshedding here. Instead of Yet Another WITH Clause, could we perhaps make a MERGING() function analogous to the GROUPING() function that goes with grouping sets? MERGE ... RETURNING *, MERGING('clause'), MERGING('action'); Or something. -- Vik Fearing
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: