Re: MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>,
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-10-30T13:07:48Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 29 October 2017 at 21:25, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote: > The semantics that I suggest (the SQL standard's semantics) will > require less code, and will be far simpler. Right now, I simply don't > understand why you're insisting on using ON CONFLICT without even > saying why. I can only surmise that you think that doing so will > simplify the implementation, but I can guarantee you that it won't. If you see problems in my proposal, please show the specific MERGE SQL statements that you think will give problems and explain how and what the failures will be. We can then use those test cases to drive developments. If we end up with code for multiple approaches we will be able to evaluate the differences between proposals using the test cases produced. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
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