Re: Concurrent MERGE

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Chris Browne" <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>,<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Subject: Re: Concurrent MERGE
Date: 2010-08-05 17:40:21
Message-ID: 4C5AB1350200002500034267@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:

> So... No, it's not directly a problem on the server itself.

I just had a thought -- the MERGE code isn't doing anything fancy
with snapshots, is it? I haven't been tracking that discussion too
closely or read the patch. My previous comments assume that the
*snapshot* is stable for the duration of a MERGE command, at least
if the transaction isolation level is serializable.

-Kevin

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2010-08-05 17:41:01 Re: BUG #5599: Vacuum fails due to index corruption issues
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2010-08-05 17:36:32 Re: Concurrent MERGE