On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > See the original e-mail in the thread for what I imagine idiomatic > usage will look like. > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cam3swzthwrktvurf1awaih8qthgnmzafydcnw8qju7pqhk5...@mail.gmail.com
Note also that this doesn't preclude a variant with a more direct update part (not that I think that's all that compelling). Doing things this way was motivated by: 1) Serving the needs of logical changeset generation plugins, even if Andres doesn't think that needs to be exposed through SQL. He and I both want something that does this with low overhead (in particular, no subtransactions). 2) Getting something effective into the next release. MERGE-like flexibility seems like a very desirable thing. And the implementation's infrastructure can be used by an eventual MERGE implementation. 3) Being simple enough that huge bike shedding over syntax might not be necessary. Making insert statements grow an update tumor is likely to get messy fast. I know because I tried it myself. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
