From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>, Boxuan Zhai <bxzhai2010(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Re: new patch of MERGE (merge_204) & a question about duplicated ctid |
Date: | 2011-01-03 17:48:57 |
Message-ID: | 1294076937.19612.1812.camel@ebony |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 19:01 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > If we do that, then we definitely need a catch-all WHEN statement, so
> > that we can say
> >
> > WHEN NOT MATCHED
> > INSERT
> > WHEN MATCHED
> > UPDATE
> > ELSE
> > { INSERT into another table so we can try again in a minute
> > or RAISE error }
> >
> > Otherwise we will silently drop rows. Throwing an error every time isn't
> > useful behaviour.
>
> An ELSE clause would be nice, but it's not related to the question at
> hand. Only some serialization anomalities result in a row that matches
> neither WHEN MATCHED nor WHEN NOT MATCHED.
Concurrent UPDATEs, DELETEs, MERGE
> Others result in a duplicate
> key exception, for example.
Concurrent INSERTs, MERGE
So an ELSE clause is very relevant to handling anomalies in a useful
way.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-01-03 17:50:39 | Re: Re: new patch of MERGE (merge_204) & a question about duplicated ctid |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2011-01-03 17:43:08 | Re: back branches vs. VS 2008 |