Horton

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

Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>
To: Gavin Flower <GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: 2014-09-28T22:57:42Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Gavin Flower
<GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz> wrote:
> How about have a stub page for MERGE, saying it is not implemented yet, but
> how about considering UPSERT - or something of that nature?
>
> I can suspect that people are much more likely to look for 'MERGE' in an
> index, or look for 'MERGE' in the list of SQL commands, than 'UPSERT'.

Seems reasonable.

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.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

Commits

  1. Change the way we mark tuples as frozen.

  2. Add documentation for data-modifying statements in WITH clauses.