| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} |
| Date: | 2014-09-28 22:57:42 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZQ-mD6FWAXBEVD_HOanSPpaLrz58PJwARB8zFG70b6mQQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Gavin Flower
<GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz> wrote:
> How about have a stub page for MERGE, saying it is not implemented yet, but
> how about considering UPSERT - or something of that nature?
>
> 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'.
Seems reasonable.
What I have a problem with is using the MERGE syntax to match people's
preexisting confused ideas about what MERGE does. If we do that, it'll
definitely bite us when we go to make what we'd be calling MERGE do
what MERGE is actually supposed to do. I favor clearly explaining
that.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Smith | 2014-09-29 00:32:30 | Re: Time measurement format - more human readable |
| Previous Message | Gavin Flower | 2014-09-28 22:41:47 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} |