Re: someone working to add merge?

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: someone working to add merge?
Date: 2005-11-18 16:30:34
Message-ID: 200511181730.36058.peter_e@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I agree --- an implementation that needs to use a table lock is
> useless, and one with no primary key is too hard to implement and
> also near useless.

Well, there were just a couple of people saying the opposite.

> I have update the TODO item to reflect this:
>
> * Add MERGE command that does UPDATE/DELETE, or on failure, INSERT
> (rules, triggers?)
>
> To implement this cleanly requires that the table have a unique
> index so duplicate checking can be easily performed.

We're still trying to work out the semantic relationship between MERGE
and REPLACE and what-we-actually-want. This entry doesn't seem to take
that into account.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Merlin Moncure 2005-11-18 18:05:33 Re: Improving count(*)
Previous Message Richard Huxton 2005-11-18 15:46:42 Re: Improving count(*)