Horton

Re: MERGE ... RETURNING

Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>

View thread
From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>, Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2023-07-13T16:36:58Z
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 Mon, 2023-01-09 at 12:29 +0000, Dean Rasheed 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 care about which of these 3 happened
> > rather than the exact clause that applied. This isn't necessarily
> > meant to be instead of your suggestion because I can imagine
> > wanting to know the exact clause, just an alternative that might
> > suffice in many situations. Using it would also avoid problems
> > arising from editing the query in a way which changes the numbers
> > of the clauses.
> > 
> 
> Hmm, perhaps that's something that can be added as well. Both use
> cases seem useful.

Can you expand a bit on the use cases for identifying individual WHEN
clauses? I see that it offers a new capability beyond just the action
type, but I'm having trouble thinking of real use cases.

Regards,
	Jeff Davis