[HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Simon Riggs
Тема [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
Дата
Msg-id CANP8+jKitBSrB7oTgT9CY2i1ObfOt36z0XMraQc+Xrz8QB0nXA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11  (Szymon Lipiński <mabewlun@gmail.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
[HACKERS] Mapping MERGE onto CTEs (Re: MERGE SQL Statement for PG11)  (Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
I'm working on re-submitting MERGE for PG11

Earlier thoughts on how this could/could not be done were sometimes
imprecise or inaccurate, so I have gone through the command per
SQL:2011 spec and produced a definitive spec in the form of an SGML
ref page. This is what I intend to deliver for PG11.

MERGE will use the same mechanisms as INSERT ON CONFLICT, so
concurrent behavior does not require further infrastructure changes,
just detailed work on the statement itself.

I'm building up the code from scratch based upon the spec, rather than
trying to thwack earlier attempts into shape. This looks more likely
to yield a commitable patch.

Major spanners or objections, please throw them in now cos I don't see any.

Questions?

-- 
Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Вложения

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Pavel Stehule
Дата:
Сообщение: [HACKERS] inconsistency in process names - bgworker: logical replication launcher
Следующее
От: Amit Langote
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning