Horton

Re: MERGE SQL Statement for PG11

Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-10-30T18:17:47Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Please explain in detail the MERGE SQL statements that you think will
> be problematic and why.

Your proposal is totally incomplete, so I can only surmise its
behavior in certain cases, to make a guess at what the problems might
be (see my remarks on EPQ, live lock, etc). This makes it impossible
to do what you ask right now.

Besides, you haven't answered the question from my last e-mail
("What's wrong with that [set of MERGE semantics]?"), so why should I
go to further trouble? You're just not constructively engaging with me
at this point. We're going around in circles.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

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.