Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 16:10:52 +0200
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>, hlinnaka <hlinnaka@iki.fi>,
 Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>,
 Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
 Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0
Message-ID: <20150501141052.GE22649@awork2.anarazel.de>
References: 
 <CAM3SWZTGE0z5_E8wRi9wt3qgOiMpSwtwr5uDcZDGhRZ1_pz6vg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150501135800.GC22649@awork2.anarazel.de>
 <CA+TgmoYQ185bf=_Z5r0MWRbN2xLgPNMK4N-Q9aAPOC7coZ4HZA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+TgmoYQ185bf=_Z5r0MWRbN2xLgPNMK4N-Q9aAPOC7coZ4HZA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On 2015-05-01 10:06:42 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > would you rather have EXCLUDED.data refer to the tuple version from
> > VALUES (or a SELECT or ...) or to version from the BEFORE trigger?
> 
> I think it would be completely shocking if it didn't refer to the
> version returned by the BEFORE trigger.  My interpretation of the
> semantics of BEFORE triggers is that, once the trigger has fired and
> returned a new tuple, things should proceed just as if that new tuple
> were the one originally provided by the user.

Well, it's a BEFORE INSERT trigger, not a BEFORE UPDATE, that's why I'm
not so sure that argument applies.

Peter also leaned in "your" direction and you apparently have a strong
opinion on it... So I guess that'll be it unless somebody else weighs
in.

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