| From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(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: | 2011-01-04 16:27:08 |
| Message-ID: | 20110104162708.GA24017@fetter.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 04:44:32AM -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >You can of course LOCK TABLE as a work-around, if that's what you want.
>
> Presuming the code quality issues and other little quirks I've
> documented (and new ones yet to be discovered) can get resolved
> here, and that's a sizeable open question, I could see shipping this
> with the automatic heavy LOCK TABLE in there. Then simple UPSERT
> could work out of the box via a straightforward MERGE.
How about implementing an UPSERT command as "take the lock, do the
merge?" That way, we'd have both the simplicity for the simpler cases
and a way to relax consistency guarantees for those who would like to
do so.
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-04 16:30:43 | Re: WIP: Range Types |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-04 16:01:02 | Re: regclass without error? |