RE: ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING on pg_dump - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Ideriha, Takeshi
Subject RE: ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING on pg_dump
Date
Msg-id 4E72940DA2BF16479384A86D54D0988A567B9429@G01JPEXMBKW04
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING on pg_dump  (Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
>> I agree with you though supporting MERGE or ON-CONFLICT-DO-UPDATE seems
>hard work.
>> Only ON-CONCLICT-DO-NOTHING use case may be narrow.
>
>Is it narrow, or is it just easy enough to add quickly?

Sorry for late replay.
I read your comment and rethought about it.
What I meant by "narrow" is that the number of people who use this new feature seems limited to me.
And I had a wrong impression that small improvements are always rejected by hackers.
But that's only the case for small improvements with huge source code modification. In short, cost/benefit ratio is low
case.

This patch have some benefits with source code change is small.
So I just wait for other people reviews.

>And by the way, you don't need MERGE.  You can just generate INSERT/
>UPDATE/DELETE statements -- MERGE is mainly an optimization on that, and could
>wait until PG has a MERGE.
Oh, thank you for clarifying this. Now I understand it.

Best regards,
Takeshi Ideriha




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Date:
Subject: Re: some question about _bt_getbuf
Next
From: Amit Khandekar
Date:
Subject: Re: AtEOXact_ApplyLauncher() and subtransactions