RE: ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING on pg_dump

From: "Ideriha, Takeshi" <ideriha(dot)takeshi(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: Nico Williams <nico(at)cryptonector(dot)com>, Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING on pg_dump
Date: 2018-06-26 10:14:37
Message-ID: 4E72940DA2BF16479384A86D54D0988A567B9429@G01JPEXMBKW04
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>> I agree with you though supporting MERGE or ON-CONFLICT-DO-UPDATE seems
>hard work.
>> Only ON-CONCLICT-DO-NOTHING use case may be narrow.
>
>Is it narrow, or is it just easy enough to add quickly?

Sorry for late replay.
I read your comment and rethought about it.
What I meant by "narrow" is that the number of people who use this new feature seems limited to me.
And I had a wrong impression that small improvements are always rejected by hackers.
But that's only the case for small improvements with huge source code modification. In short, cost/benefit ratio is low case.

This patch have some benefits with source code change is small.
So I just wait for other people reviews.

>And by the way, you don't need MERGE. You can just generate INSERT/
>UPDATE/DELETE statements -- MERGE is mainly an optimization on that, and could
>wait until PG has a MERGE.
Oh, thank you for clarifying this. Now I understand it.

Best regards,
Takeshi Ideriha

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Khandekar 2018-06-26 10:25:33 Re: AtEOXact_ApplyLauncher() and subtransactions
Previous Message Kyotaro HORIGUCHI 2018-06-26 10:00:18 Re: some question about _bt_getbuf