Peter Eisentraut wrote:
In that regard, MERGE is quite flexible, but MERGE doesn't address the point of REPLACE, because MERGE requires *two* tables as input, whereas REPLACE only takes *one*. Unless someone can show that you can trick MERGE into doing the REPLACE job anyway, we're not discussing the same thing.
I am really not db expert and I don't have copy of sql standard but you don't need to use 2 tables I think - USING part can also be subquery (some SELECT) and if I am right then you could simulate what REPLACE does because in PostgreSQL you are not forced to specify FROM clause in SELECT. So you could in theory do
MERGE INTO tablename USING (SELECT 1 AS myid) ON (tablename.id = myid) ... But I am not sure if this is what you want. -- Regards Petr Jelinek (PJMODOS) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
