On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 10:15:30AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > I don't think MERGE can really be made to be both though, in which case > it should really be the SQL2003 MERGE and we can make REPLACE/INSERT ON > DUPLICATE UPDATE something else. Perhaps a special form of MERGE where > you know it's going to be doing that locking. I really don't like the > idea of making the SQL2003 version of MERGE be the MERGE special case > (by requiring someone to take a table lock ahead of time or do something > else odd).
Anyone know off-hand what the big 3 do? If the industry consensus is that merge should actually be REPLACE/INSERT ON DUPLICATE UPDATE then it's probably better to follow that lead. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
