Re: someone working to add merge?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: someone working to add merge?
Date: 2005-11-15 14:27:56
Message-ID: 10365.1132064876@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> This only happens because of the unique index. There's no predicate
> locking involved. The btree code goes some lengths to make this work;

That's one way to look at it; the other is to say that we have predicate
locking for a very specific class of predicate, ie, equality of a
unique key.

In practice I think we only have a useful lock there for *primary* keys,
because unique without NOT NULL doesn't actually constrain you to just
one matching row ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2005-11-15 14:36:03 Re: Fixes for 8.1 run of pgindent
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-11-15 14:19:24 Re: Long-time 7.4 contrib failure Mac OS X 10.3.8