Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Re: new patch of MERGE (merge_204) & a question about duplicated ctid

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>, Boxuan Zhai <bxzhai2010(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: new patch of MERGE (merge_204) & a question about duplicated ctid
Date: 2011-01-03 16:06:15
Message-ID: 4D21F3F7.4000001@dunslane.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 01/03/2011 10:58 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>
>> In general, I also thought/expected to have some kind of UPSERT type
>> capability with our initial MERGE support, even if it requires a big
>> lock and won't operate concurrently, etc.
>
>
> You can of course LOCK TABLE as a work-around, if that's what you want.

I think we need to state this in large red letters in the docs, if 
that's the requirement.

cheers

andrew

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2011-01-03 16:08:51
Subject: Re: Re: new patch of MERGE (merge_204) & a question about duplicated ctid
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-01-03 16:02:26
Subject: Re: Re: new patch of MERGE (merge_204) & a question about duplicated ctid

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group