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

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 11:50:02 -0500
Message-ID: <5333.1517244602@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180129164422.GE11613@momjian.us>
References: <CANP8+jKitBSrB7oTgT9CY2i1ObfOt36z0XMraQc+Xrz8QB0nXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20171027124555.txawx6p6veikx25x@alvherre.pgsql>
	<CANP8+jKOQmnxo89bybX=+Fx3JuHDOwJ2aiihCHiWg3PMfcLkPA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANP8+jLdJoqjzkEdfqy_Rw43gUk08btunpJVV7Yiw=UqtOtePw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANP8+jJgS_KoN6DDteb_9-fUzfnp7Ytm9O5VE83dGpWp1pszkg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+TgmobAS8Lu83YacgSCVs_-uRRv=4EiBXV=R5qZiYV0cA6YzQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANP8+j+fyW9Ekvov5Y7j9qLuY6O0T7ah6zRGQ1gH9i0E3y6hPQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<3200.1517241972@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CANP8+jKmyTR62Tj-wSSH8k=oD-Kzm8VvOGo4G9vO_QsZGT0GMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20180129164422.GE11613@momjian.us>

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 04:34:48PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> ... If unfinished means it has caveats
>> that is different to unfinished meaning crappy, risky, contentious
>> etc..

> I think the question is how does it handle cases it doesn't support? 
> Does it give wrong answers?  Does it give a helpful error message?  Can
> you summarize that?

What I was reacting to was the comments just upthread that it doesn't
yet handle partitions or RLS.  Those things don't seem optional to me.
Maybe they're small additions, but if so why aren't they done already?

Also, as far as phased development goes: Simon's drawing analogies
to things like parallel query, which we all understood had to be
done over multiple dev cycles because they were too big to finish
in one cycle.  I don't think MERGE qualifies: there seems no good
reason why it can't be done, full stop, in the first release where
it appears.

			regards, tom lane




view thread (265+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <5333.1517244602@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../5333.1517244602@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/5333.1517244602@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, bruce@momjian.us, simon@2ndquadrant.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com, pavan.deolasee@2ndquadrant.com, pg@bowt.ie, sfrost@snowman.net
  Subject: Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
  In-Reply-To: <5333.1517244602@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* 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