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

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 11:14:01 -0700
Message-ID: <20171102181401.GB23098@marmot> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoYKesHek379ny4HtAi-nGszj_2VrQ4uvU60qV3BNSkGFQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <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>
	<20171030185511.GJ4628@tamriel.snowman.net>
	<CANP8+jJopkeYT_h_u=jb6euKVnXqRc77CiOk+hSwxOC-xtP0kQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+TgmoYKesHek379ny4HtAi-nGszj_2VrQ4uvU60qV3BNSkGFQ@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>And if, in the meantime, MERGE can only handle the cases where there
>is a unique index, then it can only handle the cases INSERT .. ON
>CONFLICT UPDATE can cover, which makes it, as far as I can see,
>syntactic sugar over what we already have.  Maybe it's not entirely -
>you might be planning to make some minor functional enhancements - but
>it's not clear what those are, and I feel like whatever it is could be
>done with less work and more elegance by just extending the INSERT ..
>ON CONFLICT UPDATE syntax.

+1

Marko Tiikkaja's INSERT ... ON CONFLICT SELECT patch, which is in the
current CF [1], moves things in this direction. I myself have
occasionally wondered if it was worth adding an alternative DO DELETE
conflict_action. This could appear alongside DO UPDATE, and be applied
using MERGE-style conditions.

All of these things seem like small adjuncts to ON CONFLICT because
they're all just an alternative way of modifying or projecting the tuple
that is locked by ON CONFLICT. Everything new would have to happen after
the novel ON CONFLICT handling has already completed.

The only reason that I haven't pursued this is because it doesn't seem
that compelling. I mention it now because It's worth acknowledging that
ON CONFLICT could be pushed a bit further in this direction. Of course,
this still falls far short of making ON CONFLICT entirely like MERGE.

[1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/15/1241/
-- 
Peter Geoghegan


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers



view thread (265+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <20171102181401.GB23098@marmot>
Permalink:  ../20171102181401.GB23098@marmot/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/20171102181401.GB23098@marmot

 · 

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: pg@bowt.ie, robertmhaas@gmail.com, simon@2ndquadrant.com, sfrost@snowman.net, michael.paquier@gmail.com
  Subject: Re: MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
  In-Reply-To: <20171102181401.GB23098@marmot>

* 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