pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 14:55:11 -0400
Message-ID: <20171030185511.GJ4628@tamriel.snowman.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoYbytQT1pZDOK6t-XD=jWffDXaHoubsU-_mqJU6W0oK0w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANP8+jKitBSrB7oTgT9CY2i1ObfOt36z0XMraQc+Xrz8QB0nXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+TgmoZuce2iHSBVpkX5qud-UbxhtY85opA47LTP=QW16J47wg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANP8+j+jG76Okkibk7Xu=T6C5-gSpXX9sudANS9nGyR9yWEgRA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+TgmobMx66NWCoje=PEGnbMQQdZojJi7v9RqsuY23vkNsTf1Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAB7nPqRzN4bE7EfVFgt64LA8FLMCV9=VGr8=FeogVEOiUbj4Ww@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANP8+j+FPEqpd8O3scwOKUgRvtWB5r5RhcCuJ8nn6VU_wc2Nng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH2-Wz=AxEKE7sJEukPN3Vgu6sU5QwuLCBHuF-oJbkOLWsxTQw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANP8+j+FM8ep1Cprbjaeknzq1pRAaxTMvX=hYsc4eGcj13fz7w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+TgmoYbytQT1pZDOK6t-XD=jWffDXaHoubsU-_mqJU6W0oK0w@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>

* Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 1:19 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > Nothing I am proposing blocks later work.
> 
> That's not really true.  Nobody's going to be happy if MERGE has one
> behavior in one set of cases and an astonishingly different behavior
> in another set of cases.  If you adopt a behavior for certain cases
> that can't be extended to other cases, then you're blocking a
> general-purpose MERGE.
> 
> And, indeed, it seems that you're proposing an implementation that
> adds no new functionality, just syntax compatibility.  Do we really
> want or need two syntaxes  for the same thing in core?  I kinda think
> Peter might have the right idea here.  Under his proposal, we'd be
> getting something that is, in a way, new.

+1.

I don't think MERGE should be radically different from other database
systems and just syntax sugar over a capability we have.  The
downthread comparison to partitioning isn't accurate either.

There's a reason that we have INSERT .. ON CONFLICT and not MERGE and
it's because they aren't the same thing, as Peter's already explained,
both now and when he and I had exactly this same discussion years ago
when he was working on implementing INSERT .. ON CONFLICT.  Time changes
many things, but I don't think anything's changed in this from the prior
discussions about it.

Thanks!

Stephen

Attachments:

  signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 818B) download

view thread (265+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <20171030185511.GJ4628@tamriel.snowman.net>
Permalink:  ../20171030185511.GJ4628@tamriel.snowman.net/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/20171030185511.GJ4628@tamriel.snowman.net

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: sfrost@snowman.net, robertmhaas@gmail.com, simon@2ndquadrant.com, pg@bowt.ie, michael.paquier@gmail.com
  Subject: Re: MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
  In-Reply-To: <20171030185511.GJ4628@tamriel.snowman.net>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox