On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 11:18:43PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 08:11:36AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> > That said, I still think that the current wording should be tweak with
> > respect
> > to row vs. rows (especially if we continue to call it a table):
> >
> > Cu
On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 11:18 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I found two places where a singular "row" would be better, doc patch
> attached.
+1.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 08:11:36AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> That said, I still think that the current wording should be tweak with respect
> to row vs. rows (especially if we continue to call it a table):
>
> Current:
> "The SET and WHERE clauses in ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE have access to th
On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 7:58 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 6:01 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> > What would probably help more is adding something like this to the
> > error message:
> >
> > HINT: column "b" could refer to any of these relations: "foo", "excluded"
> >
> > That could
On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 6:01 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> What would probably help more is adding something like this to the
> error message:
>
> HINT: column "b" could refer to any of these relations: "foo", "excluded"
>
> That could also help people who encounter this error in other
> situations. I'm
On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 6:40 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > What would probably help more is adding something like this to the
> > error message:
> > HINT: column "b" could refer to any of these relations: "foo", "excluded"
>
> +1, that seems like it could be handy across the board.
Robert Haas writes:
> I think that the issue here is simply that because both the updated
> table and the "excluded" pseudo-table are visible here, and have the
> same columns, an unqualified name is ambiguous. I don't really think
> that it's worth documenting. The error message you get if you fa
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 6:40 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> My impression from reading this transcript is that the user was
> confused as to why they needed to qualify the target table name in the
> ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE's WHERE clause -- they didn't have to qualify it
> in the targetlist that appear
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 5:05 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 1:43 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> > rhaas=# insert into foo values (1, 'frob') on conflict (a) do update
> > set b = (select b || 'nitz' from excluded);
> > ERROR: relation "excluded" does not exist
> > LINE 1: ...ct (a)
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 3:07 PM David G. Johnston
wrote:
> Yes, and based on a single encounter I agree this doesn't seem like a broadly
> encountered issue. My takeaway from that eventually led to this proposal.
> The "Other Person" who is complaining about the docs is one of the mentors on
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 2:31 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 2:07 PM David G. Johnston
> wrote:
> > Current:
> > "The SET and WHERE clauses in ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE have access to the
> > existing row using the table's name (or an alias), and to [rows] proposed
> > for insert
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 2:07 PM David G. Johnston
wrote:
> Current:
> "The SET and WHERE clauses in ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE have access to the
> existing row using the table's name (or an alias), and to [rows] proposed
> for insertion using the special excluded table."
>
> The word table in that sen
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 1:43 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 11:40 AM David G. Johnston
> wrote:
> > As one cannot place excluded in a FROM clause (subquery) in the
> > ON CONFLICT clause referring to it as a table, ...
>
> Well, it would be nice if you had included a test
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 1:43 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> rhaas=# insert into foo values (1, 'frob') on conflict (a) do update
> set b = (select b || 'nitz' from excluded);
> ERROR: relation "excluded" does not exist
> LINE 1: ...ct (a) do update set b = (select b || 'nitz' from excluded);
>
> I do fi
On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 11:40 AM David G. Johnston
wrote:
> As one cannot place excluded in a FROM clause (subquery) in the
> ON CONFLICT clause referring to it as a table, ...
Well, it would be nice if you had included a test case rather than
leaving it to the reviewer or committer to con
Hi,
Reposting this on its own thread.
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAKFQuwby1aMsJDMeibaBaohgoaZhivAo4WcqHC1%3D9-GDZ3TSng%40mail.gmail.com
As one cannot place excluded in a FROM clause (subquery) in the
ON CONFLICT clause referring to it as a table, with plural rows
none
16 matches
Mail list logo
