Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>,
Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@2ndquadrant.com>,
Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>,
PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-01-29T16:06:12Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On 29 January 2018 at 15:07, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> An argument could be made that this patch is already too late for PG >> 11, because it's a major feature that was not submitted in relatively >> complete form before the beginning of the penultimate CommitFest. > Overall, I'm following the style of development process you have > yourself used a number of times now. Waiting for mega-patches to be > complete is not as useful as phased development. An important part of that style is starting at an appropriate time in the release cycle. As things stand, you are proposing to commit an unfinished feature to v11, and then we have to see if the missing parts show up on time (ie before 1 March) and with adequate quality. Otherwise we'll be having a debate on whether to revert the feature or not ... and if it comes to that, my vote will be for reverting. I'd be much happier about committing this with some essential parts missing if it were done at the start of a devel cycle rather than near the end. regards, tom lane
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