Re: someone working to add merge?

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/