Re: MERGE vs REPLACE

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Jaime Casanova <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Subject: Re: MERGE vs REPLACE
Date: 2005-11-16 06:08:19
Message-ID: 20051116060819.GP44860@pervasive.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 01:27:29PM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >We should probably throw a notice or warning if we go to a table lock,
> >too.
>
> That's not very useful, because you can only do somethign about it AFTER
> the 1 hour exclusive lock merge has already run :)

Not true; it would be useful for development when you'd like to know
that some statement is grabbing a table lock. This is something that you
wouldn't normally notice in a dev environment, and it sounds like it'd
be easy to do a merge that has the unintended effect of grabbing a table
lock.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Glaesemann 2005-11-16 06:37:31 Re: Long-time 7.4 contrib failure Mac OS X 10.3.8
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2005-11-16 06:06:20 Re: Long-time 7.4 contrib failure Mac OS X 10.3.8