Re: Re: new patch of MERGE (merge_204) & a question about duplicated ctid
David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
From: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
To: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi>, Boxuan Zhai <bxzhai2010@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2011-01-04T16:27:08Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 04:44:32AM -0500, Greg Smith wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >You can of course LOCK TABLE as a work-around, if that's what you want. > > Presuming the code quality issues and other little quirks I've > documented (and new ones yet to be discovered) can get resolved > here, and that's a sizeable open question, I could see shipping this > with the automatic heavy LOCK TABLE in there. Then simple UPSERT > could work out of the box via a straightforward MERGE. How about implementing an UPSERT command as "take the lock, do the merge?" That way, we'd have both the simplicity for the simpler cases and a way to relax consistency guarantees for those who would like to do so. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate