On 29/09/14 14:20, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Gavin Flower
<gavinflo...@archidevsys.co.nz> wrote:
What I have a problem with is using the MERGE syntax to match people's
preexisting confused ideas about what MERGE does. If we do that, it'll
definitely bite us when we go to make what we'd be calling MERGE do
what MERGE is actually supposed to do. I favor clearly explaining
that.
Opinionated I may be, but I wanted stay well clear of the syntax minefield
in this area - as I still have at least a vestigial instinct for self
preservation! :-)
To be clear: I don't think Simon is confused about this at all, which
is why I'm surprised that he suggested it.
More specifically, I have only lightly read this thread - and while I
think the functionality is useful, I have not thought about it any real
depth. I was thinking more along the lines that if I needed
functionality like this, where & how might I look for it.
I was remembering my problems looking up syntax in COBOL after coming
from FORTRAN (& other languages) - some concepts had different names and
the philosophy was significantly different in places. The relevance
here, is that peoples' background in other DBMS & knowledge of SQL
standards affect what they expect, as well as preventing unnecessary
conflicts between PostgreSQL & SQL standards (as far as is practicable &
sensible).
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
