Horton

Re: MERGE ... RETURNING

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>

View thread
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>
Cc: jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>, walther@technowledgy.de, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org>, Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet@singh.im>, Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-03-14T14:04:12Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Add RETURNING support to MERGE.

  2. doc: Improve a couple of places in the MERGE docs.

  3. doc: improve description of privileges for MERGE and update glossary.

  4. Fix RLS policy usage in MERGE.

  5. Fix leak of LLVM "fatal-on-oom" section counter.

  6. Implement outer-level aggregates to conform to the SQL spec, with

On 2024-Mar-13, Dean Rasheed wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 at 06:44, jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > <synopsis>
> > [ WITH <replaceable class="parameter">with_query</replaceable> [, ...] ]
> > MERGE INTO [ ONLY ] <replaceable
> >
> > here the "WITH" part should have "[ RECURSIVE ]"
> 
> Actually, no. MERGE doesn't support WITH RECURSIVE.
> 
> It's not entirely clear to me why though. I did a quick test, removing
> that restriction in the parse analysis code, and it seemed to work
> fine. Alvaro, do you remember why that restriction is there?

There's no real reason for it, other than I didn't want to have to think
it through; I did suspect that it might Just Work, but I felt I would
have had to come up with more nontrivial test cases than I wanted to
write at the time.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera         PostgreSQL Developer  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"People get annoyed when you try to debug them."  (Larry Wall)