Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I agree --- an implementation that needs to use a table lock is
> > useless, and one with no primary key is too hard to implement and
> > also near useless.
>
> Well, there were just a couple of people saying the opposite.
>
> > I have update the TODO item to reflect this:
> >
> > * Add MERGE command that does UPDATE/DELETE, or on failure, INSERT
> > (rules, triggers?)
> >
> > To implement this cleanly requires that the table have a unique
> > index so duplicate checking can be easily performed.
>
> We're still trying to work out the semantic relationship between MERGE
> and REPLACE and what-we-actually-want. This entry doesn't seem to take
> that into account.
Right. Once we are done I will update it.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
