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

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}
Date: 2014-09-29 07:02:35
Message-ID: 20140929070235.GP1169@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2014-09-29 09:51:45 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> That said, it would be handy if the syntax was closer to MERGE. Aside from
> the concurrency issues, it does the same thing, right? So how about making
> the syntax identical to MERGE, except for swapping the MERGE keyword with
> e.g. UPSERT?

I don't think that's a good idea. What most people are missing is an
*easy* way to do upsert, that's similar to the normal INSERT. Not
something with a pretty different syntax. That's why INSERT OR REPLACE
and stuff like that was well adopted.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2014-09-29 07:19:54 Re: Add generate_series(numeric, numeric)
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2014-09-29 06:51:45 Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}