Tom Lane wrote: > IIRC, SQL's MERGE deals with this by offering two quite separate > specifications of what to do when there is or isn't already a > matching row.
In that regard, MERGE is quite flexible, but MERGE doesn't address the point of REPLACE, because MERGE requires *two* tables as input, whereas REPLACE only takes *one*. Unless someone can show that you can trick MERGE into doing the REPLACE job anyway, we're not discussing the same thing. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
