Re: Making joins involving ctid work for the benefit of UPSERT - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: Making joins involving ctid work for the benefit of UPSERT
Date
Msg-id CAM3SWZS4vP0TfBjvK+Y2mYnZK+9Vx_zYcwgZGbvZTZGGtvC-Fg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Making joins involving ctid work for the benefit of UPSERT  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> Well, maybe. If the genericity of this syntax isn't what people want,
> I may go with something else.

By the way, I didn't mention that there is now also the optional
ability to specify a "merge on" unique index directly in DML. It would
be much nicer to specify a sort key instead, but that might be tricky
in the general case. I imagine that other systems solve the problem by
being very restrictive in what will be (implicitly) accepted as a
merge-on index. Seemingly there are problems with all major SQL MERGE
implementations, so I don't necessarily expect to be able to draw
lessons from them in any way here.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: RLS Design
Next
From: John Cochran
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal for updating src/timezone