From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
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 15:32:24 -0500
Message-ID: <20171102203223.GT4496@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171102195145.GB27644@marmot>
References: <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>
<20171102195145.GB27644@marmot>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 12:51:45PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> 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.
Ah, right, I think my mapping was pessimal. How about this mapping
instead then:
WITH
updated AS (
UPDATE <target>
SET ...
WHERE <condition>
RETURNING <target>
)
, inserted AS (
INSERT INTO <target>
SELECT ...
WHERE <key> NOT IN (SELECT <key> FROM updated) AND ..
/*
* Add ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING here to avoid conflicts in the face
* of concurrency.
*/
RETURNING <target>
)
DELETE FROM <target>
WHERE <key> NOT IN (SELECT <key> FROM updated) AND
<key> NOT IN (SELECT <key> FROM inserted) AND ...;
?
If a MERGE has no delete clause, then the mapping would be:
WITH
updated AS (
UPDATE <target>
SET ...
WHERE <condition>
RETURNING <target>
)
INSERT INTO <target>
SELECT ...
WHERE <key> NOT IN (SELECT <key> FROM updated) AND ..
/*
* Add ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING here to avoid conflicts in the face
* of concurrency.
*/
;
> 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. [...]
I agree. So why not do that initially? Optimize later.
Such a MERGE mapping could be implemented entirely within
src/backend/parser/gram.y ...
Talk about cheap to implement, review, and maintain!
Also, this would be notionally very simple.
Any optimizations to CTE query/DML execution would be generic and
applicable to MERGE and other things besides. If mapping MERGE to
CTE-using DMLs motivates such optimizations, all the better.
> [...]. 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.
Surely not every DML with CTEs can map to MERGE. Maybe I misunderstood
your comment?
> 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.
Note that mapping to a DML with CTEs as above gets triggers, RLS, and
updateable views right from the get-go, because DMLs with CTEs, and DMLs
as CTEs, surely do as well.
Nico
--
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
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: nico@cryptonector.com, pg@bowt.ie, simon@2ndquadrant.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, michael.paquier@gmail.com
Subject: Re: MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
In-Reply-To: <20171102203223.GT4496@localhost>
* 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