This is a baby implementation of the master file merge from the early part of the last century (after the stone knives but somewhat before bearskins).
Take two tables, one mounted on tape drive A, with output to tape drive B, updated from a transaction file on tape drive C. Start Friday night. Come Monday morning your master is now on drive B and up-to-date. -- The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume. >-----Original Message----- >From: sqlite-users [mailto:sqlite-users- >boun...@mailinglists.sqlite.org] On Behalf Of Richard Hipp >Sent: Wednesday, 9 May, 2018 03:48 >To: SQLite mailing list >Subject: Re: [sqlite] 3.24 draft - upsert > >On 5/9/18, Olivier Mascia <o...@integral.be> wrote: >> About: >> >> "Column names in the expressions of a DO UPDATE refer to the >original >> unchanged value of the column, before the attempted INSERT. To use >the value >> that would have been inserted had the constraint not failed, add >the special >> "excluded." table qualifier to the column name." >> >> Why using 'excluded' wording for this? > >Because that is what PostgreSQL does. I also thought that "new" >would >have been a better choice, but they didn't consult me. :-) > >-- >D. Richard Hipp >d...@sqlite.org >_______________________________________________ >sqlite-users mailing list >sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org >http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
