| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SQL MERGE is quite distinct from UPSERT |
| Date: | 2014-07-21 05:41:54 |
| Message-ID: | 53CCA822.4000809@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 07/20/2014 12:55 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> There is a *really* big
> demand for UPSERT from users, not MERGE, although MERGE is certainly
> useful too.
The inability to efficiently say "Add this unique-keyed row, or if a row
of the same key already exists replace it atomically" is a fundamental
defect in SQL its self. Vendors shouldn't need to be coming up with
their own versions because the standard should really cover this - much
like LIMIT and OFFSET.
It's very high in the most frequently asked questions on Stack Overflow,
right up there with questions about pg_hba.conf, connection issues on OS
X, etc.
I'd be very keen to see atomic upsert in Pg. Please Cc me on any patches
/ discussion, I'll be an eager tester.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-07-21 07:46:46 | Re: SQL MERGE is quite distinct from UPSERT |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2014-07-21 05:40:47 | Re: SQL MERGE is quite distinct from UPSERT |