From: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11 |
Date: | 2018-03-23 11:26:44 |
Message-ID: | CABOikdNX7VjYxA7G1T20q-R9WcRu1BYFAChi=3rN9bSbOFKS9g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 6:45 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 6:02 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
> wrote:
> > Incremental development is a good thing. Trying to do everything in a
> > single commit is great when time is infinite or even merely very long,
> > but if you run out of it, which I'm sure is common, leaving some things
> > out that can be reasonable implemented in a separate patch is perfectly
> > acceptable.
>
> We're talking about something that took me less than an hour to get
> working. AFAICT, it's just a matter of tweaking the grammar, and
> adding a bit of transformWithClause() boilerplate to the start of
> transformMergeStmt().
>>
>>
>> I quickly implemented CTE support myself (not wCTE support, since
>> MERGE doesn't use RETURNING), and it wasn't tricky. It seems to work
>> when I mechanically duplicate the approach taken with other types of
>> DML statement in the parser. I have written a few tests, and so far it
>> holds up.
>>
>
> Ok, thanks. I started doing something similar, but great if you have
> already implemented. I will focus on other things for now.
>
>
I am sorry. I was under the impression that you're actually writing this
piece of code and hence did not pay much attention till now. I should have
confirmed with you instead of assuming. I think it's a bit too late now,
but I will give it a fair try tomorrow. I don't want to spend too much time
on it though given how close we are to the deadline. As Alvaro said, we can
always revisit this for pg12.
> As I've pointed out on this thread already, I'm often concerned about
> supporting functionality like this because it increases my overall
> confidence in the design. If it was genuinely hard to add WITH clause
> support, then that would probably tell us something about the overall
> design that likely creates problems elsewhere. It's easy to say that
> it isn't worth holding the patch up for WITH clause support, because
> that's true, but it's also beside the point.
>
Understood.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2018-03-23 11:27:14 | Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 6) |
Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2018-03-23 11:19:23 | Re: Odd procedure resolution |