Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I agree --- an implementation that needs to use a table lock is > > useless, and one with no primary key is too hard to implement and > > also near useless. > > Well, there were just a couple of people saying the opposite. > > > I have update the TODO item to reflect this: > > > > * Add MERGE command that does UPDATE/DELETE, or on failure, INSERT > > (rules, triggers?) > > > > To implement this cleanly requires that the table have a unique > > index so duplicate checking can be easily performed. > > We're still trying to work out the semantic relationship between MERGE > and REPLACE and what-we-actually-want. This entry doesn't seem to take > that into account.
Right. Once we are done I will update it. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
