| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} |
| Date: | 2014-09-29 03:53:32 |
| Message-ID: | 5428D7BC.6020305@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/29/2014 06:41 AM, Gavin Flower wrote:
>
> I can suspect that people are much more likely to look for 'MERGE' in an
> index, or look for 'MERGE' in the list of SQL commands, than 'UPSERT'.
and/or to be looking for MySQL's:
ON DUPLICATE KEY {IGNORE|UPDATE}
What astonishes me when I look around at how other RDBMS users solve
this is how many of them completely ignore concurrency issues. e.g. in
this SO question:
http://stackoverflow.com/q/108403/398670
there's an alarming lack of concern for concurrency, just a couple of
links to :
http://www.mssqltips.com/sqlservertip/3074/use-caution-with-sql-servers-merge-statement/
(BTW, that article contains some useful information about corner cases
any upsert approach should test and deal with).
Similar with Oracle: Alarming lack of concern for concurrency among users:
http://stackoverflow.com/q/237327/398670
Useful article:
http://michaeljswart.com/2011/09/mythbusting-concurrent-updateinsert-solutions/
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-09-29 04:03:21 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} |
| Previous Message | Платон Малюгин | 2014-09-29 03:42:29 | Add generate_series(numeric, numeric) |