On 2015-05-06 23:48:18 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > I'll see about fixing that. It's not just a matter of creating another alias > for the same rel, I'm afraid: "foo.t" is supposed to refer to the tuple that > we attempted to insert, like it does without the ON CONFLICT.
I'm not sure what you mean here? > But actually, I don't much like the "target" alias in the first place. We > never really completed this discussion, everyone just got tired: Right. But that doesn't affect the "it's not just a matter of ..." bit above, right? > Reading through this sub-thread, these spellings have been proposed: > > 1. TARGET and EXCLUDED > > 2. NEW and EXISTING > > 3. NEW and OLD > > 4. PROPOSED and EXISTING > > 5. CONFLICTING and EXISTING > > Did I miss any? Now, let me opine on these. How about 6. The tablename and EXCLUDED? Possibility with the ability to specify an AS for INSERT INTO foo AS whatever? >From an implementation pov that'd be simple ;) > NEW and OLD are pretty good. Like in an UPDATE trigger, NEW refers to the > version after the UPDATE, and OLD to the version before. However, there's > the serious problem that in a trigger function, OLD/NEW are already in use. > How bad is that? At least in PL/pgSQL you can work around it by aliasing the > variables, but it's a bit inconvenient. How often would INSERT .. ON > CONFLICT DO UPDATE be used in a trigger? I personally think it's a killer. It'll be very annoying to understand mistaken usage of NEW/OLD in that case. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
