Re: [HACKERS] INSERT .. ON CONFLICT DO SELECT [FOR ..]

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: > But I'm generally against > > interfaces which put arbitrary restrictions on what power users can do on > > the basis that less experienced people might

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT .. ON CONFLICT DO SELECT [FOR ..]

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: > I had to look at the patch to see what I'd done, and the tests suggest that > we already complain about this with if a FOR [lock level] clause is present: > >+begin transaction isolation level read committed; >+insert

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT .. ON CONFLICT DO SELECT [FOR ..]

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 4:09 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 12:17 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 6:23 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT .. ON CONFLICT DO SELECT [FOR ..]

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 12:17 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 6:23 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: >> > Attached is a patch for $SUBJECT. It might still be a bit rough around

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT .. ON CONFLICT DO SELECT [FOR ..]

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 6:23 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: > > Attached is a patch for $SUBJECT. It might still be a bit rough around > the > > edges and probably light on docs and testing, but I thought I'd post

Re: [HACKERS] INSERT .. ON CONFLICT DO SELECT [FOR ..]

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 6:23 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: > Attached is a patch for $SUBJECT. It might still be a bit rough around the > edges and probably light on docs and testing, but I thought I'd post it > anyway so I won't forget. Is it possible for ON CONFLICT DO SELECT to