Re: MERGE SQL Statement for PG11

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Nico Williams <nico(at)cryptonector(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
Date: 2017-11-02 19:51:45
Message-ID: 20171102195145.GB27644@marmot
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Nico Williams <nico(at)cryptonector(dot)com> wrote:
>If you want to ignore conflicts arising from concurrency you could
>always add an ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING to the INSERT DML in the mapping I
>proposed earlier. Thus a MERGE CONCURRENTLY could just do that.
>Is there any reason not to map MERGE as I proposed?

Performance, for one. MERGE generally has a join that can be optimized
like an UPDATE FROM join.

I haven't studied this question in any detail, but FWIW I think that
using CTEs for merging is morally equivalent to a traditional MERGE
implementation. It may actually be possible to map from CTEs to a MERGE
statement, but I don't think that that's a good approach to implementing

Most of the implementation time will probably be spent doing things like
making sure MERGE behaves appropriately with triggers, RLS, updatable
views, and so on. That will take quite a while, but isn't particularly
technically challenging IMV.

Peter Geoghegan

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2017-11-02 20:11:16 Re: Re: PANIC: invalid index offnum: 186 when processing BRIN indexes in VACUUM
Previous Message Nico Williams 2017-11-02 19:39:33 Re: MERGE SQL Statement for PG11