On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 03:42:38PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > It seems to me that it has always been implicitly assumed around here > > that the MERGE command would be a substitute for a MySQL-like REPLACE > > functionality. After rereading the spec it seems that this is not the > > case. MERGE always operates on two different tables, which REPLACE > > doesn't do. > > Normally I'd plump for following the standard ... but AFAIR, we have had > bucketloads of requests for REPLACE functionality, and not one request > for spec-compatible MERGE. If, as it appears, full-spec MERGE is also a > whole lot harder and slower than REPLACE, it seems that we could do > worse than to concentrate on doing REPLACE for now. (We can always come > back to MERGE some other day.)
I suspect a lot of those requests are from people who actually want merge and don't realize that mysql has a replace. On another note, is there any reason we can't put an equivalent to example 36-1 (http://lnk.nu/postgresql.org/617.html) into the backend? Presumably it wouldn't be as fast as a more elegant solution, but OTOH it'd probably be faster than plpgsql... -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq