Re: MERGE vs REPLACE

From: Jaime Casanova <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: MERGE vs REPLACE
Date: 2005-11-11 20:57:01
Message-ID: c2d9e70e0511111257y13cabed5j582ed7aeac0d1b37@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11/11/05, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> Jaime Casanova wrote:
> > MERGE seems to me the better option... not just because is standard
> > but at least i can see some use cases for it...
>
> I don't think you understand my message: MERGE does not do what REPLACE
> does.
>
> --
> Peter Eisentraut
> http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
>

I understand you well... what i was trying to say is that i prefer
MERGE (standard SQL command) to be done because the functionally it
has (basically a merge of two tables) seems to me to be more usefull
than REPLACE (MySql Command)...

--
regards,
Jaime Casanova
(DBA: DataBase Aniquilator ;)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-11-11 21:10:29 Re: Multi-table-unique-constraint
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-11-11 20:42:38 Re: MERGE vs REPLACE