Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
Date: 2018-01-29 17:08:33
Message-ID: CANP8+j+icDb4=+zVUiRN60TAf9s9WT+6dOoWQqDu+B90xATRHA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 29 January 2018 at 16:23, Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> wrote:
> On 01/29/2018 11:13 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 29 January 2018 at 15:44, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Uh, if we know we are going to get question on this, the patch had
>>> better have an explanation of when to use it. Pushing the problem to
>>> later doesn't seem helpful.
>>
>> What problem are you referring to?
>>
>> INSERT ON CONFLICT UPDATE does ...
>>
>> MERGE allows you to ...
> In my reading of Pavel and Bruce, the only 'problem' being suggested
> is that the patch hasn't added a bit of documentation somewhere that
> lays out the relationship between these two things, more or less as
> you just did.

I am happy to write docs as requested.

There are currently no docs saying when INSERT ON CONFLICT UPDATE
should be used other than the ref page for that command. There is no
mention of it in the "Data Manipulation" section of the docs.

I've included docs for MERGE so it is mentioned in concurrency and
reference sections, so it follows the same model.

Where would people like me to put these docs?

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2018-01-29 17:18:08 Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2018-01-29 17:04:52 Re: Logical Decoding and HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum assumptions