On 29/09/14 11:57, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Gavin Flower
> <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz> wrote:
>> How about have a stub page for MERGE, saying it is not implemented yet, but
>> how about considering UPSERT - or something of that nature?
>>
>> I can suspect that people are much more likely to look for 'MERGE' in an
>> index, or look for 'MERGE' in the list of SQL commands, than 'UPSERT'.
> Seems reasonable.
>
> What I have a problem with is using the MERGE syntax to match people's
> preexisting confused ideas about what MERGE does. If we do that, it'll
> definitely bite us when we go to make what we'd be calling MERGE do
> what MERGE is actually supposed to do. I favor clearly explaining
> that.
>
Opinionated I may be, but I wanted stay well clear of the syntax
minefield in this area - as I still have at least a vestigial instinct
for self preservation! :-)