On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 5:57 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> James Coleman writes:
> > On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 12:59 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> A HINT if the bogus column name (1) matches the relation name and
> >> (2) is field-qualified seems plausible to me. Then it's pretty
> >> likely to be a user misu
James Coleman writes:
> On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 12:59 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> A HINT if the bogus column name (1) matches the relation name and
>> (2) is field-qualified seems plausible to me. Then it's pretty
>> likely to be a user misunderstanding about whether to write the
>> relation name.
>
On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 12:59 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> James Coleman writes:
> > I do wonder if it's plausible (and sufficiently easy) to improve the
> > error message here. "column 'foo' of relation 'foo'" makes one thing
> > that you've written foo.foo, (in my real-world case the error message
>
James Coleman writes:
> I do wonder if it's plausible (and sufficiently easy) to improve the
> error message here. "column 'foo' of relation 'foo'" makes one thing
> that you've written foo.foo, (in my real-world case the error message
> also cut off the sql past "foo.", and so I couldn't even tel
On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 11:12 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> James Coleman writes:
> > Suppose I have this table:
> > create table foo (id int primary key);
>
> > On PG11 this works:
> > postgres=# insert into foo (id) values (1) on conflict (id) do update
> > set foo.id = 1;
> > INSERT 0 1
>
> Hmm, are
James Coleman writes:
> Suppose I have this table:
> create table foo (id int primary key);
> On PG11 this works:
> postgres=# insert into foo (id) values (1) on conflict (id) do update
> set foo.id = 1;
> INSERT 0 1
Hmm, are you sure about that? I get
ERROR: column "foo" of relation "foo" do
On Saturday, January 20, 2024, James Coleman wrote:
>
>
> Well, egg on my face for definitely missing that in the docs.
>
> Unfortunately that doesn't explain why it works on PG11 and not on PG12.
>
It was a bug that got fixed. I’m sure a search of the mailing list
archives or Git will turn up t
On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 1:53 PM David G. Johnston
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 10:01 AM James Coleman wrote:
>>
>> Making this more confusing is the fact that if I want to do something
>> like "SET bar = foo.bar + 1" the table qualification cannot be present
>> on the setting column but is
On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 10:01 AM James Coleman wrote:
> Making this more confusing is the fact that if I want to do something
> like "SET bar = foo.bar + 1" the table qualification cannot be present
> on the setting column but is required on the reading column.
>
> There isn't anything in the doc
Hello,
I realize this is almost ancient history at this point, but I ran into
a surprising behavior change from PG11->12 with ON CONFLICT ... DO
UPDATE SET ...
Suppose I have this table:
create table foo (id int primary key);
On PG11 this works:
postgres=# insert into foo (id) values (1) on conf
10 matches
Mail list logo
