From: | Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "A(dot)M(dot)" <agentm(at)themactionfaction(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: MERGE Specification |
Date: | 2008-04-24 16:00:41 |
Message-ID: | 13D620EF-2805-47E9-A063-0849E6AF720E@decibel.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Apr 22, 2008, at 3:20 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 02:19:24PM -0500, Decibel! wrote:
>> But no matter how this is done, I think we need to handle the race
>> conditions, and handle them by default. If people *really* know what
>> they're doing, they can disable the row locking (perhaps one way to
>> do this would be to grab an explicit lock on the table and have merge
>> check for that...).
>
> I disagree. The spec doesn't require it and MERGE is useful without
> it.
> For a first cut I would say implement as the spec says, race
> conditions
> and all. Later we can think on whether it's worth handling them
> directly.
That really strikes me as taking the "MySQL route". If push comes to
shove, I'll take a MERGE with race conditions over no merge at all,
but I think it's very important that it does the right thing. Just
because the spec doesn't say anything about it doesn't mean it's ok.
--
Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-04-24 16:04:47 | Re: Is this TODO item done? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-04-24 15:53:06 | hm, why isn't SGT in the default timezone abbreviations list? |