| From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "A(dot)M(dot)" <agentm(at)themactionfaction(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: MERGE Specification |
| Date: | 2008-04-25 08:36:27 |
| Message-ID: | 20080425083627.GA8824@svana.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:40:22PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> In that case, it's a fair question to ask just who will use the "spec"
> syntax. As far as I can tell from years of watching the mailing lists,
> there is plenty of demand for a concurrent-safe insert-or-update
> behavior, and *exactly zero* demand for the other. I challenge you to
> find even one request for the "spec" behavior in the mailing list
> archives. (Simon doesn't count.)
I could have used something like this a few years ago. I don't think it
would get mentioned on the lists, because frankly it's not something I
would've expected a DBMS to handle internally. Certainly I'd never
heard of the MERGE command until recently. I just wrote a program to do
it (and no, race conditions wern't an issue).
Making a race condition free version is fine, just as long as merging
on a condition without a unique index is also supported.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Please line up in a tree and maintain the heap invariant while
> boarding. Thank you for flying nlogn airlines.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Petr Jelinek | 2008-04-25 09:07:44 | Re: MERGE Specification |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-04-25 08:28:47 | Re: MERGE Specification |