Re: MERGE vs REPLACE - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jaime Casanova
Subject Re: MERGE vs REPLACE
Date
Msg-id c2d9e70e0511111219o7911c2dl4f3c3a7dcb6e9d06@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to MERGE vs REPLACE  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: MERGE vs REPLACE  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 11/11/05, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> It seems to me that it has always been implicitly assumed around here
> that the MERGE command would be a substitute for a MySQL-like REPLACE
> functionality.  After rereading the spec it seems that this is not the
> case.  MERGE always operates on two different tables, which REPLACE
> doesn't do.
>
> That said, what kind of support for insert-or-update-this-row do we want
> to provide, if any?  Should it be a REPLACE command, an extension of
> the INSERT command, a modication of the MERGE syntax, or something
> else?
>
> --
> Peter Eisentraut
> http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
>

MERGE seems to me the better option... not just because is standard
but at least i can see some use cases for it...


--
regards,
Jaime Casanova
(DBA: DataBase Aniquilator ;)


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Brusser, Michael"
Date:
Subject: How to find a number of connections
Next
From: Bruno Wolff III
Date:
Subject: Re: How to find a number of connections