Horton

Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}

Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>, Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.org>
Cc: 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: 2014-10-08T20:29:43Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 08/10/14 11:28, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:36 AM, Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.org> wrote:
>> But the
>> MERGE syntax, to me, strongly implies that insertion doesn't begin
>> before determining whether a conflict exists or not.
>
> I think you're right. Another strike against the MERGE syntax, then,
> since as I said we cannot even know what to check prior to having
> before row insert triggers fire.
>

True, but to me it also seems to be strike against using INSERT for this 
as I don't really see how you can make triggers work in a sane way if 
the UPSERT is implemented as part of INSERT (at least I haven't seen any 
proposal that I would consider sane from the user point of view).

-- 
  Petr Jelinek                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
  PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Commits

  1. Change the way we mark tuples as frozen.

  2. Add documentation for data-modifying statements in WITH clauses.