https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=8098
--- Comment #7 from [email protected] --- Thank you Sidney, re-reading the docs, I concur. My (wrong) assumption was that excluded would refer to the row in the table that could not be *updated*, when it really refers to the row that could not be *added* (which is way more logical as the origin of the conflict was an INSERT to begin with). It is actually clear in the postgres docs as well: "Note that the special excluded table is used to reference values originally proposed for insertion" So: Sorry if I added confusion. :-( -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
