Re: MERGE SQL Statement for PG11

* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > We seem to have a few options for PG11
> >
> > 1. Do nothing, we reject MERGE
> >
> > 2. Implement MERGE for unique index situations only, attempting to
> > avoid errors (Simon OP)
> >
> > 3. Implement MERGE, but without attempting to avoid concurrent ERRORs (Peter)
> >
> > 4. Implement MERGE, while attempting to avoid concurrent ERRORs in
> > cases where that is possible.
> >
> > Stephen, Robert, please say which option you now believe we should pick.
>
> I think Peter has made a good case for #3, so I lean toward that
> option. I think #4 is too much of a non-obvious behavior difference
> between the cases where we can avoid those errors and the cases where
> we can't, and I don't see where #2 can go in the future other than #4.

Agreed.

Thanks!

Stephen