On Wed, 2014-11-26 at 16:59 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > > Looks like the consensus is that we should have RETURNING project > > updated tuples too, then. > > Attached revision, v1.5, establishes this behavior (as always, there > is a variant for each approach to value locking). There is a new > commit with a commit message describing the new RETURNING/command tag > behavior in detail, so no need to repeat it here. The documentation > has been updated in these areas, too.
It seems there isn't any way to distinguish between insert and update of given row. Maybe a pseudo-column can be added so that it can be used in the returning statement: insert into foobar(id, other_col) values(2, '2') on conflict (id) update set other_col=excluded.other_col returning id, pseudo.was_updated; This would ensure that users could check for each primary key value if the row was updated or inserted. Of course, the pseudo.was_updated name should be replaced by something better. It would be nice to be able to skip updates of rows that were not changed: insert into foobar values(2, '2') on conflict (id) update set other_col=excluded.other_col where target is distinct from excluded; - Anssi Kääriäinen -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
