Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}
Date: 2014-09-28 21:22:52
Message-ID: CAM3SWZTK=XBqVrnKkh3O+tNzY2HGNjALtJTKXfOvBR3jihoE6w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> There was informal meeting of this at the dev meeting a in 2012.

I mean: There was informal agreement that as long as we're working on
a feature that makes useful, UPSERT-like guarantees, we shouldn't use
the MERGE syntax. MERGE clearly benefits (in ways only relevant to the
use-case it targets) from having the leeway to not care about what
someone with the UPSERT use-case would call race conditions.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gavin Flower 2014-09-28 22:29:50 Re: Time measurement format - more human readable
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2014-09-28 20:31:46 Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}