IIRC the standard syntax is based on db2's horrendous merge on command, which was only added to the standard a couple months back.
IIRC the main downside to the select/update method is it introduces a race condition that can only be solved by locking the table; not an issue for most my$ql apps but would be frowned upon by most postgresql users. Robert Treat On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 15:00, Duane Lee - EGOVX wrote: > I agree. You could always do a SELECT and if the record was found then > UPDATE otherwise INSERT. A little more effort than MYSQL but again I > don't believe the way MYSQL is allowing you to do it is standard. > > Duane > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Huxton [ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ] > Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 11:02 AM > To: Eduardo Pérez Ureta > Cc: Duane Lee - EGOVX; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] INSERT ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE > > > Eduardo Pérez Ureta wrote: > > On 2004-06-18 17:19:40 UTC, Duane Lee - EGOVX wrote: > > > >>I would suspect you would need to write a trigger to do this. > > > > > > It seems the mysql way of doing this is easier and safer. > > And non-standard AFAIK. > > > Why is that not implemented in postgresql? > > Is it better done with a trigger or with any other way? > > Out of curiosity, why don't you know whether you're inserting or > updating? It always worries me when I don't know what my application is > doing. > > -- > Richard Huxton > Archonet Ltd > -- Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
