Tom Lane wrote:
> IIRC, SQL's MERGE deals with this by offering two quite separate
> specifications of what to do when there is or isn't already a
> matching row.
In that regard, MERGE is quite flexible, but MERGE doesn't address the
point of REPLACE, because MERGE requires *two* tables as input, whereas
REPLACE only takes *one*. Unless someone can show that you can trick
MERGE into doing the REPLACE job anyway, we're not discussing the same
thing.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
