Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 8:11 PM, Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com> wrote:
> Honestly I don't think Peter ever raised concerns about the join, though I
> could be missing early discussions when I wasn't paying attention. It's
> there from day 1. Peter raised concerns about the two RTE stuff which was
> necessitated when we added support for partitioned table. We discussed that
> at some length, with your inputs and agreed that it's not necessarily a bad
> thing and probably the only way to deal with partitioned tables.
>
> Personally, I don't see why an internal join is bad. That's what MERGE is
> doing anyways, so it closely matches with the overall procedure.

The issue is not that there is a join as such. It's how it's
represented in the parser, and how that affects other things. There is
a lot of special case logic to make it work.


-- 
Peter Geoghegan