| From: | Boxuan Zhai <bxzhai2010(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: MERGE command for inheritance |
| Date: | 2010-08-11 12:51:16 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTinBDgH-3keZP6H20nywvHxVpxRfhUtzt5m_F3Pc@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <
heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On 10/08/10 12:38, Boxuan Zhai wrote:
>
>> These days I am considering what else can be done for MERGE, And, I
>> find inheritance tables in postgres is not supported by our MERGE command
>> yet.
>>
>
> I played with your latest patch version a bit, and actually, it seems to me
> that inherited tables work just fine. I ran into the assertion failures
> earlier while trying that, but that has now been fixed. Can you give an
> example of the kind of query that's not working yet?
>
>
Well, in the patch I submitted, the target relation is forced not to scan
any inheritance tables. That is, the command always acts like
MERGE into *ONLY* foo USING bar ....
So, the inheritance in current MERGE should not work, I think.
>
> --
> Heikki Linnakangas
> EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-08-11 12:51:44 | Re: Bug / shortcoming in has_*_privilege |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2010-08-11 12:38:34 | Re: Bug / shortcoming in has_*_privilege |