Re: ON CONFLICT DO SELECT (take 3)
| От | Viktor Holmberg |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: ON CONFLICT DO SELECT (take 3) |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 2f9f72d3-cca2-4c4c-a104-46d1119682f7@Spark обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: ON CONFLICT DO SELECT (take 3) (Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: ON CONFLICT DO SELECT (take 3)
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 19 Nov 2025 at 15:08 +0100, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>, wrote:
I made a quick pass over the code, and I'm attaching a few more
suggested updates. This is mostly cosmetic stuff (e.g., fixing a few
code comments that were overlooked), plus some minor refactoring to
reduce code duplication.
Neat!
For the CASE default, elog(ERROR, "unrecognized LockClauseStrength %d” that was removed.
Would this now trigger a compile time error/warning? And are you supposed to get 0 warnings when compiling?
(I get a large amount of warnings "warning: 'pg_restrict' macro redefined" on master, but that could just be something with my environment)
More of a question, the changes are an improvement.
/Viktor
For the CASE default, elog(ERROR, "unrecognized LockClauseStrength %d” that was removed.
Would this now trigger a compile time error/warning? And are you supposed to get 0 warnings when compiling?
(I get a large amount of warnings "warning: 'pg_restrict' macro redefined" on master, but that could just be something with my environment)
More of a question, the changes are an improvement.
/Viktor
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: