Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}

On 29 September 2014 02:20, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Gavin Flower
> <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz> wrote:
>>> What I have a problem with is using the MERGE syntax to match people's
>>> preexisting confused ideas about what MERGE does. If we do that, it'll
>>> definitely bite us when we go to make what we'd be calling MERGE do
>>> what MERGE is actually supposed to do. I favor clearly explaining
>>> that.
>>>
>> Opinionated I may be, but I wanted stay well clear of the syntax minefield
>> in this area - as I still have at least a vestigial instinct for self
>> preservation! :-)
>
> To be clear: I don't think Simon is confused about this at all, which
> is why I'm surprised that he suggested it.

At this point, I started to discuss MERGE again, but let me stop
because there is a wider issue.

These threads are littered with references that go nowhere. Links back
to an email where you said the same thing two years ago are not proof
that its a bad idea. You need to carefully explain things in detail in
one place to allow people to make up their own minds, not just
re-assert it endlessly and claim 3 friends also agree, while everyone
else searches desperately for what the actual reasons are. Lists of
problems with MERGE statement, with examples are what is needed to
convince and keep us convinced. Then full documentation on the
proposed solution, so we can see that also.

Please go to some trouble to tidy things up so we have clarity that
*we* can see and decide for ourselves whether or not you are correct.

Thanks

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services