| From: | Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Matteo Beccati <php(at)beccati(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net |
| Subject: | Re: MERGE vs REPLACE |
| Date: | 2005-11-13 15:01:30 |
| Message-ID: | e692861c0511130701h4c312746l732554f73be5c2ef@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/13/05, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> wrote:
> On Saturday 12 November 2005 04:06, Matteo Beccati wrote:
> > | 1 | 1 | NULL |
> Wow, that seems ugly.... maybe there's a reason for it, but I'm not sure we
> could deviate from my$ql's behavior on this even if we wanted... they are the
> "standard" here.
I don't think that's ugly, I think that's exactly working as
advertised. Replace behaves exactly like deleting the record with the
matching primary key and inserting the provided input. ... not merging
together old data with new.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2005-11-13 15:19:12 | Re: SIGSEGV taken on 8.1 during dump/reload |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2005-11-13 13:27:33 | Re: MERGE vs REPLACE |