Re: Incorrect UPDATE trigger invocation in the UPDATE clause of an UPSERT statement.

On 2015-12-08 15:32:03 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I actually think that there is an argument to be made for doing
> nothing here, and not allowing a cardinality violation at all.

Works for me. I'll add a short comment before the ExecUpdate() detailing
that the row could, in rather uncommon cases, be updated by that
point. Adding an extra parameter to ExecUpdate() + additional concerns
to it's already nontrivial HTSV codepath doesn't seem worth it to
me.

Greetings,

Andres Freund