| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | MERGE SQL Statement for PG11 |
| Date: | 2017-10-27 08:55:05 |
| Message-ID: | CANP8+jKitBSrB7oTgT9CY2i1ObfOt36z0XMraQc+Xrz8QB0nXA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I'm working on re-submitting MERGE for PG11
Earlier thoughts on how this could/could not be done were sometimes
imprecise or inaccurate, so I have gone through the command per
SQL:2011 spec and produced a definitive spec in the form of an SGML
ref page. This is what I intend to deliver for PG11.
MERGE will use the same mechanisms as INSERT ON CONFLICT, so
concurrent behavior does not require further infrastructure changes,
just detailed work on the statement itself.
I'm building up the code from scratch based upon the spec, rather than
trying to thwack earlier attempts into shape. This looks more likely
to yield a commitable patch.
Major spanners or objections, please throw them in now cos I don't see any.
Questions?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| sql-merge.html | text/html | 23.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2017-10-27 09:11:25 | Re: path toward faster partition pruning |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2017-10-27 08:06:29 | inconsistency in process names - bgworker: logical replication launcher |