On 2015-04-28 10:40:10 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Andres Freund (andres@anarazel.de) wrote:
> > On 2015-04-28 16:36:28 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> > > I am also very sure that every time I'll write this statement I will have to
> > > look into manual for the names of TARGET and EXCLUDED because they don't
> > > seem intuitive to me at all (especially the EXCLUDED).
> >
> > Same here. I don't understand why 'CONFLICTING' would be more ambiguous
> > than EXCLUDED (as Peter argued earlier). Especially given that the whole
> > syntax is called ON CONFLICT.
>
> Any way we can alias it? Both of those strike me as annoyingly long and
> if we could allow an alias then people can do whatever they want...
>
> No, I haven't got any suggestion on how to do that. :)
>
> It's also something we can probably improve on in the future...
I earlier suggested NEW/OLD. I still think that's not too bad as I don't
buy the argument that they're too associated with rules.
Greetings,
Andres Freund