| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, 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: | 2017-10-30 08:44:40 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYbytQT1pZDOK6t-XD=jWffDXaHoubsU-_mqJU6W0oK0w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 1:19 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Nothing I am proposing blocks later work.
That's not really true. Nobody's going to be happy if MERGE has one
behavior in one set of cases and an astonishingly different behavior
in another set of cases. If you adopt a behavior for certain cases
that can't be extended to other cases, then you're blocking a
general-purpose MERGE.
And, indeed, it seems that you're proposing an implementation that
adds no new functionality, just syntax compatibility. Do we really
want or need two syntaxes for the same thing in core? I kinda think
Peter might have the right idea here. Under his proposal, we'd be
getting something that is, in a way, new.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2017-10-30 08:48:07 | Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers |
| Previous Message | Anthony Bykov | 2017-10-30 08:15:00 | Re: Jsonb transform for pl/python |