| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "A(dot)M(dot)" <agentm(at)themactionfaction(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: MERGE Specification |
| Date: | 2008-04-24 16:19:28 |
| Message-ID: | 29957.1209053968@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
> That really strikes me as taking the "MySQL route". If push comes to
> shove, I'll take a MERGE with race conditions over no merge at all,
> but I think it's very important that it does the right thing. Just
> because the spec doesn't say anything about it doesn't mean it's ok.
Agreed. It seems to me that in the last set of discussions, we rejected
implementing MERGE precisely because it failed to provide a solution to
the race-condition problem. I'm not satisfied with a version that
doesn't handle that, because I think that is *exactly* what most people
will try to use it for. The non-concurrent bulk update case that Simon
is arguing for is the uncommon usage.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-04-24 16:20:46 | Re: Proposed patch - psql wraps at window width |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-04-24 16:11:30 | Re: Is this TODO item done? |