Horton

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

Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.org>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.org>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>
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: 2014-10-08T08:36:49Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 3:47 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> It seems like what you're talking about here is just changing the
> spelling of what I already have.

I think there's a subtle difference in expectations too. The current
BEFORE INSERT trigger behavior is somewhat defensible with an
INSERT-driven syntax (though I don't like it even now [1]). But the
MERGE syntax, to me, strongly implies that insertion doesn't begin
before determining whether a conflict exists or not.

[1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABRT9RD6zriK+t6mnqQOqaozZ5z1bUaKh+kNY=O9ZqBZFoAuBg@mail.gmail.com

Regards,
Marti

Commits

  1. Change the way we mark tuples as frozen.

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