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

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
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 12:51:45 -0700
Message-ID: <20171102195145.GB27644@marmot> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171102191612.GR4496@localhost>
References: <CANP8+jJLvkBgaet6O3j-yGapu9kUSv69PTMQxGwYuq2Eb-t2dw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH2-Wzm0A0PUiAeMsmj6P+P4jaP+yz3dXH5f=xPWnuyX5m8ebQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANP8+j+Wij0NoewRaNA=U6pfz3CxV9AXdBrkvRmGcq+ZiBQxpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH2-Wz=4Nha_cMdwTVcZwD9Gt1uzXEfpKOv72vBhCAJNEGQ0kw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANP8+jJBpB7e+sHs=gPaqL-E2Prtmv7fnLN9D34BO8_mJuy_KQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH2-Wzk+4013Ht1d9uNef2YBPdkTyyhdH=CDQ527K4iCfatu+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANP8+jKNXUjW4FT=1me5FzTpvMhwWkK4-Ea3F1_Vw9vE0rkt0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20171101182032.GA7104@marmot>
	<CANP8+jJtsL3fYgiRWYB5vM9g98iFNHgBeCtPufUkgVShpEFvvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20171102191612.GR4496@localhost>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:
>If you want to ignore conflicts arising from concurrency you could
>always add an ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING to the INSERT DML in the mapping I
>proposed earlier.  Thus a MERGE CONCURRENTLY could just do that.
>
>Is there any reason not to map MERGE as I proposed?

Performance, for one. MERGE generally has a join that can be optimized
like an UPDATE FROM join.

I haven't studied this question in any detail, but FWIW I think that
using CTEs for merging is morally equivalent to a traditional MERGE
implementation. It may actually be possible to map from CTEs to a MERGE
statement, but I don't think that that's a good approach to implementing
MERGE.

Most of the implementation time will probably be spent doing things like
making sure MERGE behaves appropriately with triggers, RLS, updatable
views, and so on. That will take quite a while, but isn't particularly
technically challenging IMV.

--
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: <20171102195145.GB27644@marmot>
Permalink:  ../20171102195145.GB27644@marmot/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/20171102195145.GB27644@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, nico@cryptonector.com, simon@2ndquadrant.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, michael.paquier@gmail.com
  Subject: Re: MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
  In-Reply-To: <20171102195145.GB27644@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