On 2014-07-18 10:53:36 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote: > > I think the things that use "wierd" visibility semantics are pretty much > > all doing that internally (things being EvalPlanQual stuff for > > INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE and the referential integrity triggers). I don't > > see sufficient reason why we should break away from that here. Yes, > > there's stuff that cannot be done when it's done internally, but we can > > live with those not being possible. > > The whole point of what I was proposing was that those semantics would > only apply to a special tid scan node. Perhaps I missed something, but > I'm not sure why you'd consider that I was breaking away from that > here at all.
I don't see why you'd need such a node at all if we had a fully builtin UPSERT. The whole stuff with ON CONFLICT SELECT FOR UPDATE and then UPDATE ... FROM c CONFLICTS is too complicated and exposes stuff that barely anybody will understand, let alone use correctly in queries they write themselves. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
