On 29/09/14 11:57, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Gavin Flower
<gavinflo...@archidevsys.co.nz> wrote:
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'.
Seems reasonable.
What I have a problem with is using the MERGE syntax to match people's
preexisting confused ideas about what MERGE does. If we do that, it'll
definitely bite us when we go to make what we'd be calling MERGE do
what MERGE is actually supposed to do. I favor clearly explaining
that.
Opinionated I may be, but I wanted stay well clear of the syntax
minefield in this area - as I still have at least a vestigial instinct
for self preservation! :-)
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
