On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think it would be advisable to separate the syntax from the > implementation. Presumably you can make your implementation use some > reasonable syntax we can all agree on, and conversely my proposed > syntax could be made to have a different set of semantics. There's > some connection between the syntax and semantics, of course, but it's > not 100%. I mention this because I was mostly concerned with getting > to a reasonable syntax proposal, not so much the implementation > details. It may well be that your implementation details are perfect > at this point; I don't know because I haven't looked, and I'm not an > expert on that area of the code anyway. But I have looked at your > syntax, which I wasn't altogether keen on.
Fair enough. I think the syntax should reflect the fact that upserts are driven by inserts, though. Users will get into trouble with a syntax that allows a predicate that is evaluated before any rows are locked. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
