Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}

On 29/09/14 14:20, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Gavin Flower
> <GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz> wrote:
>>> What I have a problem with is using the MERGE syntax to match people's
>>> preexisting confused ideas about what MERGE does. If we do that, it'll
>>> definitely bite us when we go to make what we'd be calling MERGE do
>>> what MERGE is actually supposed to do. I favor clearly explaining
>>> that.
>>>
>> Opinionated I may be, but I wanted stay well clear of the syntax minefield
>> in this area - as I still have at least a vestigial instinct for self
>> preservation!  :-)
> To be clear: I don't think Simon is confused about this at all, which
> is why I'm surprised that he suggested it.
>
>
More specifically, I have only lightly read this thread - and while I 
think the functionality is useful, I have not thought about it any real 
depth.  I was thinking more along the lines that if I needed 
functionality like this, where & how might I look for it.

I was remembering my problems looking up syntax in COBOL after coming 
from FORTRAN (& other languages) - some concepts had different names and 
the philosophy was significantly different in places.  The relevance 
here, is that peoples' background in other DBMS & knowledge of SQL 
standards affect what they expect, as well as preventing unnecessary 
conflicts between PostgreSQL & SQL standards (as far as is practicable & 
sensible).