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.
In response to
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 |