On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 13:19 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > Seems like we should try to locate a row first, then INSERT if we cannot
> > find one. That's slower on INSERT but more balanced overall
> 
> Except it still has the race condition.

I'm not saying it didn't; but dropping in two dead copies of a tuple
isn't acceptable either.

> > I'm a bit surprised the TODO didn't mention the MERGE statement, which
> > is the SQL:2003 syntax for specifying this as an atomic statement.
> 
> I believe we concluded that MERGE doesn't actually do quite what people
> want/expect.  Please go back and read the archives.

Yes, it was my thread. I recall that there wasn't any acceptable answer
to how it could be done with reasonable efficiency.

-- 
  Simon Riggs             
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

• Re: UPSERT at 2007-03-02 18:19:58 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Andrew - Supernews	Date: 2007-03-02 18:41:08
	Subject: Re: GIST and TOAST
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2007-03-02 18:39:21
	Subject: Re: UPSERT