MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <10660.1432171328@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <E1YqZCW-0000e6-Od@gemulon.postgresql.org>
 <20150520215816.GI5885@postgresql.org>
 <CAM3SWZRUhr1806zsF28CVRrB=b4t8PWv8d9x29z02xTQoFDyWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150520220911.GK5885@postgresql.org>
 <CAM3SWZQXP3Z=iXQ_+HwoqG7417JYf6HKDTmgk-4Xt05OEL_S_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM3SWZT0Rex4CpZo+re_m2Dh7wunMNsbD-9ZSWWx=JSewW3OVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150521011229.GX27868@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <10660.1432171328@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 19:08:46 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAM3SWZSu88Kbu_htJT1FfTWUkfaSd+8Q+oArbyX+SE5i2KPJ0w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add support for INSERT ... ON
 CONFLICT DO NOTHING/UPDATE.
From: Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
 Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I am not really sure that it was a good idea to invent
> this command tag.  In fact, I'm pretty sure it was a *bad* idea ---
> what will happen if we ever create a statement actually named UPSERT?

Why would we invent a statement actually named UPSERT?

> I think we should fix this by ripping out the variant tag, not trying
> to propagate it everywhere it would need to go.  Cute ideas are not
> the same as good ideas.

I don't feel particularly strongly about it one way or the other. The
way the command tag reports number of rows affected beside the INSERT
tag in psql is relevant. If some of those rows were actually updated,
that could mislead. I'm not saying that it outweighs your concern, but
it was the reason for inventing a variant tag, and it is a
consideration.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers