Horton

Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, 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: 2018-01-30T16:01:14Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 7:15 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 04:34:48PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> In terms of timing of commits, I have marked the patch Ready For
>> Committer. To me that signifies that it is ready for review by a
>> Committer prior to commit.
>
> My understanding of this meaning is different than yours.  It should not
> be the author's role to mark his own patch as ready for committer, but
> the role of one or more people who have reviewed in-depth the proposed
> patch and feature concepts.  If you can get a committer-level individual
> to review your patch, then good for you.  But review basics need to
> happen first.  And based on my rough lookup of this thread this has not
> happened yet.  Other people on this thread are pointing out that as
> well.

+1 to all of that.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Commits

  1. Add support for MERGE SQL command

  2. Add API of sorts for transition table handling in trigger.c

  3. Revert MERGE patch

  4. Fix several bugs related to ON CONFLICT's EXCLUDED pseudo relation.