On Apr 25, 2010, at 1:40 PM, Roland Bouman wrote: > Hi Jobin, All, > > On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Jobin Augustine <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jobin, I read up a bit more on MERGE, and indeed it seems not trivial > to rewrite REPLACE INTO into a MERGE INTO statement. > Good point - I never gave it that much thought, so thanks for pointing that > out. > >>>> all these headache may go if we could discontinue support for mysqlism. >> >>> But that would postpone the problem until you would like to add >>> support for the standard MERGE INTO syntax. >>> In other words, it would need to be solved anyway. >> >> No. not requied, MERGE is bit different on its use. >> (just like its name sounds) >> >> let me explain, the overall syntax of merge will look like: >> As we can see merge works like a sub query fashion. and UPDATE and INSERT >> are part of it (3rd and 5th line). >> so in effect MERGE statement splits into a SELECT statement (1st line) >> followed by UPDATE or INSERT. >> >> Here the advantage is, UPDATE and INSERT are explicit. so no ambiguity >> remains. > > Ok. So if I understand correctly, your point is that since MERGE > explicitly results in either INSERT or UPDATE, there is never any > doubt what function should be called and what it's result should > indicate. > I think that's a fair point.
Yeah that actually sounds really awesome to me. I always like it when things are explicit. $0.02 Tim _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
