Re: pgsql: New files for MERGE

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pgsql: New files for MERGE
Date: 2018-04-04 19:26:33
Message-ID: CAH2-WzngGJzVC=-sZ_eo0iQi99ej3dm6qqG68cbN6sLZfnNtnA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 12:09 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Personally, I didn't think we had consensus on whether the semantics
> are right, let alone on whether this is a satisfactory implementation
> code-wise. I know I've never looked at the patch before today; I did not
> think it was close enough to being committed that I would need to.

To be fair, I was happy with the semantics we came up with for READ
COMMITTED conflict handling, although it wasn't that long ago that
that ceased to be the big concern. This happened due to a truly heroic
effort from Pavan.

The problems that remained were with the representation used during
parsing, planning, and execution, which seem like they could have a
lot of unforeseen consequences. Plus a general lack of maturity.
Things like column-level privileges were broken as recently as a week
before commit, due to being totally untested. That was a consequence
of the representation in the executor.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2018-04-04 19:27:19 pgsql: Rewrite pg_dump TAP tests
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-04-04 19:09:55 Re: pgsql: New files for MERGE

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-04-04 19:42:35 Re: Foreign keys and partitioned tables
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2018-04-04 19:12:54 Re: Parallel Aggregates for string_agg and array_agg