Re: MERGE vs REPLACE

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jaime Casanova <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Rick Gigger <rick(at)alpinenetworking(dot)com>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Subject: Re: MERGE vs REPLACE
Date: 2005-11-16 17:12:12
Message-ID: 8714.1132161132@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jaime Casanova <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> If the lock will be required, what's the problem in doing it
> internally?

I already explained that: lock upgrading is deadlock-prone.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2005-11-16 17:13:49 Numeric 508 datatype
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2005-11-16 17:12:10 Re: MERGE vs REPLACE