On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Serge Rielau <se...@rielau.com> wrote: > And sometimes the community DOES go its own way rather than implementing the > standard. For example by rejecting the MERGE statement in favor of another > syntax and semantic.
That's total nonsense. MERGE isn't UPSERT, and isn't even in competition with UPSERT as a feature. I've written reams of text explaining why this is so in precise detail, with reference to the implementations of all other major systems [1][2]. The general consensus is that we might one day have both UPSERT and MERGE, just like Teradata. They really are that different that that would be perfectly reasonable. Any application that uses MERGE and assumes UPSERT-like guarantees should be assumed broken. We didn't diverge from the SQL standard on a whim. This was discussed, on and off, for over a year. [1] https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/UPSERT#MERGE_disadvantages [2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAM3SWZRP0c3g6+aJ=yydgyactzg0xa8-1_fcvo5xm7hrel3...@mail.gmail.com -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
