Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:

> Jim Starkey wrote:
>
>>I don't understand this at all. REPLACE has been used in many database
>>systems for years, and, unless I've missed something, now part of the
>>standard as MERGE. The Oracle semantics are sane and sensible. The
>>MySQL semantics are not.
>
> MERGE is a complex statement that can be used as REPLACE, but with very
> unfriendly syntax.

A number of the SQL standard commands have unfriendly syntax, but we
need to be working to support them, not simply selecting another non
standard option. Surely the 'roadmap' should be to move to SQL2003
standard and only add stuff that is not actually supported by the standard?

> Main scope of MERGE is to get data from one table and insert/update in
> another.

So what is wrong with that being a later goal?

> It do a outer join of one table with another, if the result of one side
> exist, it's updated. Otherwise it's inserted.

So isn't REPLACE the same but working on the one table?

We do need to decide if Firebird is going to become SQL2003 compliant -
which I would prefer - or not?

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk
Model Engineers Digital Workshop -
http://home.lsces.co.uk/ModelEngineersDigitalWorkshop/
Treasurer - Firebird Foundation Inc. - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php