| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, Dann Corbit <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Rick Gigger <rick(at)alpinenetworking(dot)com>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Jaime Casanova <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: MERGE vs REPLACE |
| Date: | 2005-11-21 21:46:30 |
| Message-ID: | 20051121214630.GM19279@pervasive.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 10:15:30AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I don't think MERGE can really be made to be both though, in which case
> it should really be the SQL2003 MERGE and we can make REPLACE/INSERT ON
> DUPLICATE UPDATE something else. Perhaps a special form of MERGE where
> you know it's going to be doing that locking. I really don't like the
> idea of making the SQL2003 version of MERGE be the MERGE special case
> (by requiring someone to take a table lock ahead of time or do something
> else odd).
Anyone know off-hand what the big 3 do? If the industry consensus is
that merge should actually be REPLACE/INSERT ON DUPLICATE UPDATE then
it's probably better to follow that lead.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | mark | 2005-11-21 21:46:40 | Re: Are NULLs in Arrays compressed? |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-11-21 21:44:36 | Re: MERGE vs REPLACE |