Bruce Momjian wrote: > I agree --- an implementation that needs to use a table lock is > useless, and one with no primary key is too hard to implement and > also near useless.
Well, there were just a couple of people saying the opposite. > I have update the TODO item to reflect this: > > * Add MERGE command that does UPDATE/DELETE, or on failure, INSERT > (rules, triggers?) > > To implement this cleanly requires that the table have a unique > index so duplicate checking can be easily performed. We're still trying to work out the semantic relationship between MERGE and REPLACE and what-we-actually-want. This entry doesn't seem to take that into account. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
