Hi All,
The fundamental question here is:
What does "insert into object(col1, ... , coln) select sel1, ... , seln
from ... order by ord1, ... ordm returning val1, ..., valk" mean?
In particular, what does the "order by" do in "insert ... select ... order
by"? Will this be honoured with parallel
The ideal solution would be that the RETURNING values are in the same order
as the declared rows in the table literal "FROM (VALUES (10, 11, 1), (12,
13, 2)) AS sel(p1, p2, num)". But before any of you jump down my throat
about about sets and a bar to parallel inserts, I think it's a small matter
To clarify, the work around (for SQLAlchemy) does not require the RETURNING
values to be ordered; they will be reordered code side. Longer term
matching the order up would be an added bonus!
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 at 04:02, John Howroyd wrote:
> The ideal solution would be that the RETURN
ould be tuple_order 1, entry (4, 5, 6) would be tuple order 2,
> etc.
>
> That token would solve the entire problem in all cases. The 1800 line
> changeset I've been working on all week would go away (if every database
> had this) and the change would be reduced to a few doze
@PostgreSQL: Might I ask if this is still being actively considered or
should we repost to another mailing list (perhaps pgsql-hackers or any
other you might suggest)?
Apr 2023 at 19:50, David G. Johnston
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 11:42 AM John Howroyd
> wrote:
>
>> @PostgreSQL: Might I ask if this is still being actively considered or
>> should we repost to another mailing list (perhaps pgsql-hackers or any
>> other you mig
May I clarify the ideas being discussed so far, perhaps with a view to make
a relevant proposal. My apologies if I get anything wrong or go too far.
As I understand it the proposal is to supplement the syntax to something
like:
INSERT INTO table (a, b, c)
VALUES ((1,2,3), (4,5,6), ...)
WITH ORDI
PS: Sorry, I haven't yet thought how this might work with UPDATE or MERGE,
but if I am on the right track with INSERT I'll give this some thought.
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 at 18:48, John Howroyd wrote:
> May I clarify the ideas being discussed so far, perhaps with a view to
>
Sorry, I may have jumped to a conclusion that's not quite correct.
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 at 23:58, Federico wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 at 00:21, John Howroyd
> wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > Personally, I didn't see Frederico's comment as anything to do
