| From: | Petr Jelinek <pjmodos(at)seznam(dot)cz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: MERGE vs REPLACE |
| Date: | 2005-11-11 20:08:05 |
| Message-ID: | 4374FA25.1070602@seznam.cz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> It seems to me that it has always been implicitly assumed around here
> that the MERGE command would be a substitute for a MySQL-like REPLACE
> functionality. After rereading the spec it seems that this is not the
> case. MERGE always operates on two different tables, which REPLACE
> doesn't do.
>
> That said, what kind of support for insert-or-update-this-row do we want
> to provide, if any? Should it be a REPLACE command, an extension of
> the INSERT command, a modication of the MERGE syntax, or something
> else?
>
MERGE of course, it's standard, REPLACE is mysql extension
--
Regards
Petr Jelinek (PJMODOS)
www.parba.cz
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Brusser, Michael | 2005-11-11 20:09:41 | How to find a number of connections |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2005-11-11 20:01:55 | MERGE vs REPLACE |