On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think the policies applied should depend on the path taken, so if it > does an INSERT, then only the INSERT CHECK policy should be applied > (after the insert), but if it ends up doing an UPDATE, I would expect > the UPDATE USING policy to be applied (before the update) and the > UPDATE CHECK policy to be applied (after the update). I would not > expect the INSERT CHECK policy to be applied on the UPDATE path.
I agree. > As to whether the UPDATE USING policy should cause an error to be > thrown if it is not satisfied, my inclination would be to not error, > and use the command tag to report that no rows were updated, since > that is what would happen with a regular UPDATE. My inclination would be to error, but I'd be OK with your proposal. > So overall INSERT .. ON CONFLICT UPDATE would be consistent with > either an INSERT or an UPDATE, depending on whether the row existed > beforehand, which is easier to explain than having some special UPSERT > semantics. Yeah. We won't escape the question so easily where triggers are concerned, but at least for RLS it seems like it should be possible to avoid confusing, one-off semantics. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
