This allows a RETURNING clause to be appended to a MERGE query, to
return values based on each row inserted, updated, or deleted. As with
plain INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE commands, the returned values are
based on the new contents of the target table for INSERT and UPDATE
actions, and on its old contents for DELETE actions. Values from the
source relation may also be returned.
As with INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE, the output of MERGE ... RETURNING may be
used as the source relation for other operations such as WITH queries
and COPY commands.
Additionally, a special function merge_action() is provided, which
returns 'INSERT', 'UPDATE', or 'DELETE', depending on the action
executed for each row. The merge_action() function can be used
anywhere in the RETURNING list, including in arbitrary expressions and
subqueries, but it is an error to use it anywhere outside of a MERGE
query's RETURNING list.
Dean Rasheed, reviewed by Isaac Morland, Vik Fearing, Alvaro Herrera,
Gurjeet Singh, Jian He, Jeff Davis, Merlin Moncure, Peter Eisentraut,
and Wolfgang Walther.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCWePEGQR5LBn-vD6SfeLZafzEm2Qy_L_Oky2=qw2w3Pzg@mail.gmail.com
SQL commands are generally marked up as <command>, except when a link
to a reference page is used using <xref>. But the latter doesn't
create monospace markup, so this looks strange especially when a
paragraph contains a mix of links and non-links.
We considered putting <command> in the <refentrytitle> on the target
side, but that creates some formatting side effects elsewhere.
Generally, it seems safer to solve this on the link source side.
We can't put the <xref> inside the <command>; the DTD doesn't allow
this. DocBook 5 would allow the <command> to have the linkend
attribute itself, but we are not there yet.
So to solve this for now, convert the <xref>s to <link> plus
<command>. This gives the correct look and also gives some more
flexibility what we can put into the link text (e.g., subcommands or
other clauses). In the future, these could then be converted to
DocBook 5 style.
I haven't converted absolutely all xrefs to SQL command reference
pages, only those where we care about the appearance of the link text
or where it was otherwise appropriate to make the appearance match a
bit better. Also in some cases, the links where repetitive, so in
those cases the links where just removed and replaced by a plain
<command>. In cases where we just want the link and don't
specifically care about the generated link text (typically phrased
"for further information see <xref ...>") the xref is kept.
Reported-by: Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari@ilmari.org>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/87o8pco34z.fsf@wibble.ilmari.org
Since some preparation work had already been done, the only source
changes left were changing empty-element tags like <xref linkend="foo">
to <xref linkend="foo"/>, and changing the DOCTYPE.
The source files are still named *.sgml, but they are actually XML files
now. Renaming could be considered later.
In the build system, the intermediate step to convert from SGML to XML
is removed. Everything is build straight from the source files again.
The OpenSP (or the old SP) package is no longer needed.
The documentation toolchain instructions are updated and are much
simpler now.
Peter Eisentraut, Alexander Lakhin, Jürgen Purtz
For DocBook XML compatibility, don't use SGML empty tags (</>) anymore,
replace by the full tag name. Add a warning option to catch future
occurrences.
Alexander Lakhin, Jürgen Purtz
There are assorted references to RETURNING in Part II, but nothing
that would qualify as an explanation of the feature, which seems
like an oversight considering how useful it is. Add something.
Noted while looking for a place to point a cross-reference to ...
The endterm attribute is mainly useful when the toolchain does not support
automatic link target text generation for a particular situation. In the
past, this was required by the man page tools for all reference page links,
but that is no longer the case, and it now actually gets in the way of
proper automatic link text generation. The only remaining use cases are
currently xrefs to refsects.
Standard English uses "may", "can", and "might" in different ways:
may - permission, "You may borrow my rake."
can - ability, "I can lift that log."
might - possibility, "It might rain today."
Unfortunately, in conversational English, their use is often mixed, as
in, "You may use this variable to do X", when in fact, "can" is a better
choice. Similarly, "It may crash" is better stated, "It might crash".
Also update two error messages mentioned in the documenation to match.
Dean Rasheed
Peter Eisentraut
Magnus Hagander
Peter Eisentraut
Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian
Neil Conway
PostgreSQL Daemon