Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
Date
Msg-id CAH2-Wz=w9SQnooaUF+gVFe5HMh8mmdnaf91H7OGFDQ6UF6-E3A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 6:02 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> Incremental development is a good thing.  Trying to do everything in a
> single commit is great when time is infinite or even merely very long,
> but if you run out of it, which I'm sure is common, leaving some things
> out that can be reasonable implemented in a separate patch is perfectly
> acceptable.

We're talking about something that took me less than an hour to get
working. AFAICT, it's just a matter of tweaking the grammar, and
adding a bit of transformWithClause() boilerplate to the start of
transformMergeStmt().

As I've pointed out on this thread already, I'm often concerned about
supporting functionality like this because it increases my overall
confidence in the design. If it was genuinely hard to add WITH clause
support, then that would probably tell us something about the overall
design that likely creates problems elsewhere. It's easy to say that
it isn't worth holding the patch up for WITH clause support, because
that's true, but it's also beside the point.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] taking stdbool.h into use