> > Withholding a final opinion until I see the actual syntax, I tend to
> > favor the keyword REPLACE. Yes, MySQL has a REPLACE statement with
> > approximately (?) the same syntax, but the MySQL statement is completely
> > screwed up and works badly, if at all, with triggers or foreign keys.
> > Having Firebird do it right will making fixing MySQL easier (believe it
> > or not).
>
>
> I don't believe that at all. No project is going to change the
> semantics of an existing statement because some other (much smaller)
> project implemented it differently. The way to get MySQL to change
> is to use a different keyword and the right semantics. Then, they
> might consider implementing ours and eventually deprecating theirs.

Note:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/insert-on-duplicate.html

I very very much doubt MySQL is ever gonna change their REPLACE.

And for good reasons:
- it works as documented
- backwards compatibility

That being said... I still would like Firebirds implementation better ;)

Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL, NexusDB, Oracle &
MS SQL Server
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com
My thoughts:
http://blog.upscene.com/martijn/
Database development questions? Check the forum!
http://www.databasedevelopmentforum.com