Re: MERGE Specification
| От | Boxuan Zhai |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: MERGE Specification |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | AANLkTi=6+Qn8OFDt=RVd7A7BYDn422GtY4H4mNHmCaqw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: MERGE Specification (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: MERGE Specification
(David Fetter <david@fetter.org>)
Re: MERGE Specification (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 12:29 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 05/08/10 10:46, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 21:08 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> The following two files specify the behaviour of the MERGE statement and
> >> how it will work in the world of PostgreSQL.
> >
> >> The HTML file was generated from SGML source, though the latter is not
> >> included here for clarity.
> >
> > Enclose merge.sgml docs for forthcoming MERGE command, as originally
> > written.
>
> Oh, cool, I wasn't aware you had written that already. Boxuan, please
> include this in your patch, after reviewing and removing/editing
> anything that doesn't apply to your patch.
Thanks a lot for the instruction file of MERGE command. I have read through it carefully. It is really a great work. I have to admit that I am not familiar with the sgml language, and I cannot write the instruction by myself.
All features of MERGE demonstrated in this file are consistent with my implementation, EXCEPT the DO NOTHING option. In current edition, we don't have the DO NOTHING action type. That is, during the execution of MERGE commands, if one tuple is not caught by any of the merge actions, it will be ignored. In another word, DO NOTING (although cannot be specified explicitly by user) is the DEFAULT action for tuples.
In the contrary, Simon's instruction says that the DEFAULT action for the tuple caught by no actions is
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN INSERT DEFAULT VALUES
From the user's point of view, these two kinds of MERGE command may have not much differences. But, as the coder, I prefer current setting, because we can save the implementation for a new type of MERGE actions (DO NOTHING is a special merge action type). And, thus, no checks and special process for it. (For example, we need to make sure that DO NOTHING is the last WHEN clause, and it has no additional qual. And we have to generate a INSERT DEFAULT VALUES action for the MERGE command if we don't find the DO NOTHING action)
Well, if people want the DO NOTHING action, I will add it in the system.
Now, I have changed the RULE strategy of MERGE to the better logic. And I am working on triggers for MERGE, which is also mentioned in the instruction file. I will build a new patch with no long comment and blank line around functions, and possibly contain the regress test file and this sgml instructions in it.
I wish we can reach a agreement on the DO NOTHING thing before my next submission, so I can make necessary modification on my code for it. (the new patch may be finished in one or two days, I think)
Thanks!
PS: I have an embarrassing question: how to view the sgml instructions of postgres in web page form, rather than read the source code of them?
Also had these fragments as well, if they're still useful. Probably just
useful as pointers as to what else to change to include the docs.
The tests and docs were written from SQL standard, so any deviations
would need to be flagged. The idea of writing the tests first was that
they provide an objective test of whether the implementation works
according to spec.
I'd quite like a commentary on anything that needs changing. Not saying
I will necessarily object to differences, but knowing the differences
sounds important for us.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:
Предыдущее
От: "Richard"Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Re: [HACKERS] Online backup cause boot failure, anyone know why?