Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]> wrote:
> As I've mentioned, it isn't the MERGE syntax because that is
> quite a different thing. There is a place for it, but it's not
> strategically important in the same way as upsert is.
I think that the subset of the MERGE syntax that would be needed
for UPSERT behavior would be as follows. For one row as literals:
MERGE INTO tab t
USING (VALUES ('foo', 'p1')) new(id, colB)
ON (t.id = new.id)
WHEN MATCHED THEN
UPDATE SET colB = new.colB
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN
INSERT (id, colB) VALUES (new.id, new.colB);
If you have a bunch of rows in a "bar" table you want to merge in:
MERGE INTO tab t
USING (SELECT id, colB FROM bar) b
ON (t.id = b.id)
WHEN MATCHED THEN
UPDATE SET colB = b.colB
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN
INSERT (id, colB) VALUES (b.id, b.colB);
I fail to see how this is harder or more problematic than the
nonstandard suggestions that have been floated. I don't know why
we would be even *considering* a nonstandard syntax rather than
saying that only this subset is supported *so far*.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
