On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 1:19 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Nothing I am proposing blocks later work.
That's not really true. Nobody's going to be happy if MERGE has one behavior in one set of cases and an astonishingly different behavior in another set of cases. If you adopt a behavior for certain cases that can't be extended to other cases, then you're blocking a general-purpose MERGE. And, indeed, it seems that you're proposing an implementation that adds no new functionality, just syntax compatibility. Do we really want or need two syntaxes for the same thing in core? I kinda think Peter might have the right idea here. Under his proposal, we'd be getting something that is, in a way, new. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers