| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Making joins involving ctid work for the benefit of UPSERT |
| Date: | 2014-07-18 17:53:36 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZSi7KuAoyQ4n9x9fJwPw6hYTRR9pyrN5Z5V_Cs+-1Sbgw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I think the things that use "wierd" visibility semantics are pretty much
> all doing that internally (things being EvalPlanQual stuff for
> INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE and the referential integrity triggers). I don't
> see sufficient reason why we should break away from that here. Yes,
> there's stuff that cannot be done when it's done internally, but we can
> live with those not being possible.
The whole point of what I was proposing was that those semantics would
only apply to a special tid scan node. Perhaps I missed something, but
I'm not sure why you'd consider that I was breaking away from that
here at all.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-07-18 18:06:08 | Re: Making joins involving ctid work for the benefit of UPSERT |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-07-18 17:46:30 | Re: Making joins involving ctid work for the benefit of UPSERT |