Re: doc: Clarify what "excluded" represents for INSERT ON CONFLICT

On Fri, Jul  8, 2022 at 11:18:43PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Jul  1, 2022 at 08:11:36AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> > That said, I still think that the current wording should be tweak with respect
> > to row vs. rows (especially if we continue to call it a table):
> > 
> > Current:
> > "The SET and WHERE clauses in ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE have access to the
> > existing row using the table's name (or an alias), and to [rows] proposed
> > for insertion using the special excluded table."
> > 
> > Change [rows] to:
> > 
> > "the row"
> > 
> > 
> > I'm undecided whether "FROM excluded" should be something that works - but I
> > also don't think it would actually be used in any case.
> 
> I found two places where a singular "row" would be better, doc patch
> attached.

Patch applied to all supported versions.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian          https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Indecision is a decision.  Inaction is an action.  Mark Batterson