| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Restrict concurrent update/delete with UPDATE of partition key |
| Date: | 2018-03-08 15:29:39 |
| Message-ID: | 11930.1520522979@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> ... I suppose we could still decide that if we
> can't have that, we don't want update tuple routing at all, but I
> think that's an overreaction.
Between this thread and
<CAJ3gD9fRbEzDqdeDq1jxqZUb47kJn+tQ7=Bcgjc8quqKsDViKQ(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
I am getting the distinct impression that that feature wasn't ready
to be committed. I think that reverting it for v11 is definitely
an option that needs to be kept on the table.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Prabhat Sahu | 2018-03-08 15:53:05 | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-03-08 15:29:01 | Re: unique indexes on partitioned tables |