X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCE519FB2DB for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:50:25 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 99993-09 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:50:16 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.175]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D79A9FAE4E for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:50:16 -0300 (ADT) Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id m3so574445uge for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 18:50:12 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=iwt/hT2gFPSCpisF+xS21v8r+ksQyziVFIEKFh2+acglqRQjLFJ/6LKvz6umm30lfhvO4Pv4F2gxXYaAPylGmnmj0G5By1FVK6fO9H8/dFMc6bFRbk65Xawm36w2PkHUKUjmVFbULp+dUcDrQ6dmL2p5eZZoUkPWS39Xa783PjI= Received: by 10.67.22.2 with SMTP id z2mr685444ugi; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 18:50:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.67.98.7 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 18:50:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <36e682920607131850m5503ccd5v6b9af0151de49c9a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 21:50:06 -0400 From: "Jonah H. Harris" To: "Peter Eisentraut" , "Andrew Dunstan" , PostgreSQL-development , "Susanne Ebrecht" Subject: Re: 8.2 features? In-Reply-To: <20060714013026.GH17269@kenobi.snowman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <44B69778.5050104@dunslane.net> <50461.84.63.113.55.1152832991.squirrel@pezone.net> <20060714013026.GH17269@kenobi.snowman.net> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200607/476 X-Sequence-Number: 86331 On 7/13/06, Stephen Frost wrote: > I agree that it's probably not going to happen for 8.2 but I certainly > have uses for the SQL spec's definition of MERGE (table-level instead of > the individual-tuple case). I'd like to see the individual-tuple > UPSERT/REPLACE issue handled as well but I don't believe MERGE lacking > that necessairly means MERGE should be ignored.. Where does Jan stand on it, I know he was doing some thinking about how to accomplish it. -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1300 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 2nd Floor | jharris@enterprisedb.com Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/