Re: merge command - GSoC progress

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Boxuan Zhai <bxzhai2010(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: merge command - GSoC progress
Date: 2010-08-04 15:26:30
Message-ID: 1280935591.1838.126.camel@ebony
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 15:36 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 17:23 +0800, Boxuan Zhai wrote:
> > Dear Robert,
> >
> > I am just considering that there may be some logical mistakes for my
> > rule rewriting strategy of MERGE actions.
> >
> > In my current design, if we find that an action type, say UPDATE, is
> > replaced by INSTEAD rules, we will remove all the actions of this type
> > from the MERGE command, as if they are not be specified by user from
> > the beginning. See the test example in my pages for this situation.
> > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/MergeTestExamples#With_INSTEAD_rules
>
> It seems sensible to use the test files that I wrote for MERGE in 2008,
> published to -hackers at that time.

Even more sensible for me to include it as a patch, with the files in
the right places and the schedules updated.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services

Attachment Content-Type Size
merge_tests.patch text/x-patch 13.1 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-08-04 15:29:39 Re: string_agg delimiter having no effect with order by
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-08-04 15:20:44 Re: tracking inherited columns (was: patch for check constraints using multiple inheritance)