On 07/10/2025 23:52, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 at 14:56, Viktor Holmberg <v@viktorh.net> wrote:
>> A maybe bigger question, is it nice that EXCLUDED is null when no conflict occurred? I can see the logic, but I
thinkergonomics wise it’d be nicer to have the proposed values in EXCLUDED, no matter what happened later. Then one can
checkEXCLUDED.value = NEW.value to see if one’s changes were added, for example.
> Hmm, I'm not sure. I think it would be counter-intuitive to have
> non-null EXCLUDED values for rows that weren't excluded, and I think
> it's just as easy to check what values were added either way.
Agreed. EXCLUDED should be null or even inaccessible if the row wasn't
excluded.
--
Vik Fearing
