On 29 October 2017 at 21:25, Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: > The semantics that I suggest (the SQL standard's semantics) will > require less code, and will be far simpler. Right now, I simply don't > understand why you're insisting on using ON CONFLICT without even > saying why. I can only surmise that you think that doing so will > simplify the implementation, but I can guarantee you that it won't.
If you see problems in my proposal, please show the specific MERGE SQL statements that you think will give problems and explain how and what the failures will be. We can then use those test cases to drive developments. If we end up with code for multiple approaches we will be able to evaluate the differences between proposals using the test cases produced. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
