Horton

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

Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>, Anssi Kääriäinen <anssi.kaariainen@thl.fi>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2014-12-16T19:08:46Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Maybe IGNORE is defined as a macro in MinGW?
> > Try s/IGNORE/IGNORE_P/g throughout the patch.
>
> BTW, the gcc -E flag does this. So figure out what exact arguments
> MinGW's gcc is passed in the ordinary course of compiling gram.c, and
> prepend "-E" to the list of existing flags while manually executing
> gcc -- that should let you know exactly what's happening here.
>

Yep, I tried that trick and had decided it didn't work in MinGW.  But I
think it was a user error--I must have somehow broken up the build tree and
'make' didn't detect the problem.  Now I see that IGNORE is getting turned
to 0.

Your new version 1.7 of the patches fixes that issue, as well as the OID
conflict.

Thanks,

Jeff

Commits

  1. Change the way we mark tuples as frozen.

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