Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}
Anssi Kääriäinen <anssi.kaariainen@thl.fi>
From: Anssi Kääriäinen <anssi.kaariainen@thl.fi>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>,
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, Kevin
Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>,
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>, "Pg Hackers"
<pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: 2014-12-04T11:07:08Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 2014-11-26 at 16:59 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: > > Looks like the consensus is that we should have RETURNING project > > updated tuples too, then. > > Attached revision, v1.5, establishes this behavior (as always, there > is a variant for each approach to value locking). There is a new > commit with a commit message describing the new RETURNING/command tag > behavior in detail, so no need to repeat it here. The documentation > has been updated in these areas, too. It seems there isn't any way to distinguish between insert and update of given row. Maybe a pseudo-column can be added so that it can be used in the returning statement: insert into foobar(id, other_col) values(2, '2') on conflict (id) update set other_col=excluded.other_col returning id, pseudo.was_updated; This would ensure that users could check for each primary key value if the row was updated or inserted. Of course, the pseudo.was_updated name should be replaced by something better. It would be nice to be able to skip updates of rows that were not changed: insert into foobar values(2, '2') on conflict (id) update set other_col=excluded.other_col where target is distinct from excluded; - Anssi Kääriäinen
Commits
-
Change the way we mark tuples as frozen.
- 37484ad2aace 9.4.0 cited
-
Add documentation for data-modifying statements in WITH clauses.
- 0ef0b3020402 9.1.0 cited