| From: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE |
| Date: | 2014-01-11 01:02:35 |
| Message-ID: | 52D0982B.7060901@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/10/14, 6:51 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Jim Nasby<jim(at)nasby(dot)net> wrote:
>> >Well, the usual example for exclusion constraints is resource scheduling
>> >(ie: scheduling what room a class will be held in). In that context is it
>> >hard to believe that you might want to MERGE a set of new classroom
>> >assignments in?
> So you schedule a class that clashes with 3 other classes, and you
> want to update all 3 rows/classes with details from your one row
> proposed for insertion?
Nuts, I was misunderstanding the scenario. I thought this was simply going to violate exclusion constraints.
I see what you're saying now, and I'm not coming up with a scenario either. Perhaps Jeff Davis could, since he created them... if he can't then I'd say we're safe ignoring that aspect.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-01-11 01:03:00 | Re: Re: [bug fix] multibyte messages are displayed incorrectly on the client |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-01-11 00:57:04 | Re: integrate pg_upgrade analyze_new_cluster.sh into vacuumdb |