On 29/09/14 09:31, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
MERGE INTO tab USING VALUES ('foo')
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN
INSERT (colB)
WHEN MATCHED THEN
UPDATE SET colB = NEW.p1
and throwing "ERROR: full syntax for MERGE not implemented yet" if
people stretch too far.
That isn't the MERGE syntax either. Where is the join?
I've extensively discussed why I think we should avoid calling
something upsert-like MERGE, as you know:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAM3SWZRP0c3g6+aJ=yydgyactzg0xa8-1_fcvo5xm7hrel3...@mail.gmail.com#CAM3SWZRP0c3g6+aJ=yydgyactzg0xa8-1_fcvo5xm7hrel3...@mail.gmail.com
We *should* have a MERGE feature, but one that serves the actual MERGE
use-case well. That is an important use-case; it just isn't the one
I'm interested in right now.
FWIW, I agree that it wouldn't be much work to do this - what you
present here really is just a different syntax for what I have here
(which isn't MERGE). I think it would be counter-productive to pursue
this, though. Also, what about limiting the unique indexes under
consideration?
There was informal meeting of this at the dev meeting a in 2012.
How about have a stub page for MERGE, saying it is not implemented yet,
but how about considering UPSERT - or something of that nature?
I can suspect that people are much more likely to look for 'MERGE' in an
index, or look for 'MERGE' in the list of SQL commands, than 'UPSERT'.
Cheers,
Gavin
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
