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-WznOuc=7_zSySetM8=r95t7Kx7-Y7QNF00Xb+GEWZaO2ZA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11  (Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 8:11 PM, Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com> wrote:
> Honestly I don't think Peter ever raised concerns about the join, though I
> could be missing early discussions when I wasn't paying attention. It's
> there from day 1. Peter raised concerns about the two RTE stuff which was
> necessitated when we added support for partitioned table. We discussed that
> at some length, with your inputs and agreed that it's not necessarily a bad
> thing and probably the only way to deal with partitioned tables.
>
> Personally, I don't see why an internal join is bad. That's what MERGE is
> doing anyways, so it closely matches with the overall procedure.

The issue is not that there is a join as such. It's how it's
represented in the parser, and how that affects other things. There is
a lot of special case logic to make it work.


-- 
Peter Geoghegan


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavan Deolasee
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11