Re: MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater@gmx.net>
From: Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater@gmx.net>
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2017-11-03T07:46:20Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
PMFJI > We seem to have a few options for PG11 > > 1. Do nothing, we reject MERGE > > 2. Implement MERGE for unique index situations only, attempting to > avoid errors (Simon OP) > > 3. Implement MERGE, but without attempting to avoid concurrent ERRORs > (Peter) > > 4. Implement MERGE, while attempting to avoid concurrent ERRORs in > cases where that is possible. From an end-users point of view I would prefer 3 (or 4 if that won't prevent this from going into 11) INSERT ... ON CONFLICT is great, but there are situations where the restrictions can get in the way and it would be nice to have an alternative - albeit with some (documented) drawbacks. As far as I know Oracle also doesn't guarantee that MERGE is safe for concurrent use - you can still wind up with a unique key violation. -- Sent from: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-hackers-f1928748.html
Commits
-
Add support for MERGE SQL command
- 7103ebb7aae8 15.0 landed
-
Add API of sorts for transition table handling in trigger.c
- 3a46a45f6f00 15.0 landed
-
Revert MERGE patch
- 08ea7a2291db 11.0 cited
-
Fix several bugs related to ON CONFLICT's EXCLUDED pseudo relation.
- ad2278379244 9.6.0 cited