Horton

Re: MERGE ... RETURNING

Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org>

View thread
From: Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org>
To: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>, Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2023-01-09T16:23:04Z
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 1/9/23 13:29, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jan 2023 at 20:09, Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com> 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.

Bikeshedding here.  Instead of Yet Another WITH Clause, could we perhaps 
make a MERGING() function analogous to the GROUPING() function that goes 
with grouping sets?

MERGE ...
RETURNING *, MERGING('clause'), MERGING('action');

Or something.
-- 
Vik Fearing