| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| 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: | 2005-11-19 02:17:02 |
| Message-ID: | 200511190217.jAJ2H2V09039@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 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.
Right. Once we are done I will update it.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-11-19 03:33:38 | Re: order by, for custom types |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-11-19 01:56:13 | Re: Some array semantics issues |