Re: MERGE examples not clear

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 08:56:50AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 8:35 AM PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>
> wrote:
> 
>     The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
> 
>     Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/sql-merge.html
>     Description:
> 
>     On this page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/sql-merge.html
>     the first and second examples seems to be contrasted (by "this would be
>     exactly equivalent to the following statement"), however the difference
>     does
>     not seem to related to the stated reason ("the MATCHED result does not
>     change"). It seems like the difference should involve the order of WHEN
>     clauses?
>     Of course, it might be that I don't understand the point, in which case
>     maybe the point could be stated more clearly?
> 
> 
> Yeah, that is a pretty poor pair of examples.  Given that a given customer can
> reasonably be assumed to have more than one recent transaction the MERGE has a
> good chance of failing.
> 
> The only difference between the two is the second one uses an explicit subquery
> as the source while the first simply names a table.  If the subquery had a
> GROUP BY customer_id that would be a good change explaining that the second
> query is different because it is resilient in the face of duplicate customer
> recent transactions.
> 
> While here...source_alias (...completely hides...the fact that a query was
> issued).  What?  Probably it should read (not verified) that it is actually
> required when the source is a query (maybe tweaking the syntax to match).

The attached patch removes the second example, which doesn't seem to add
much.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Only you can decide what is important to you.