On 8 May 2015 at 16:51, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2015-05-08 16:36:07 +0100, Geoff Winkless wrote: > > I thought the previous version suggested multiple possible targets and > > actions, this suggests that while there can be multiple targets the > > action is always the same. > > I don't think any version of the patch included that functionality. I > can see it being useful, but it'd make a bunch of things more > complicated, so I doubt we'll get there for 9.5. >
I'm not particularly bothered by it - I only see it ever being useful on the extreme edge case, and I certainly wouldn't want it to hold up the release - but it was the only reason I could see for requiring a target_clause in the first place (I expect that's why I misread the docs previously!). If you can't specify different actions based on the target_clause, what's the point in forcing the user to enumerate it? > example (or similar); do we think people will be smart enough to realise > > that's possible without one? > > Hm. I'm tempted to say that the synopis makes that clear enough. Unless I'm missing it, it's really only in "This happens on a row-by-row basis" and in the "deterministic" paragraph that you even mention multi-line inserts in the ON CONFLICT section. > I > > personally never check such examples though, so maybe I'm the wrong > person to judge. > I'm afraid I'm the sort of person who goes straight to the examples :) Maybe I'll just suggest then that there's a _potential for confusion_ if you only give examples of the first kind - people might place some inference on the fact that the examples only show single-row INSERTs. Geoff
