Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, 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: 2018-03-27 18:14:58
Message-ID: CAH2-WzneuBzYSn3ggs7JPAWDBDN8WYDSdwLjBrjL1RjW1+x9Vw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 1:15 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Accepted, the only question is whether it affects UPDATE as well cos
> it looks like it should.

If you mean an UPDATE FROM self-join, then I suppose that it does, in
a very limited way. The difference is that there are no hard-coded
assumptions about the relationship between those two RTEs.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2018-03-27 18:34:50 Re: Re: csv format for psql
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-03-27 18:12:38 Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning