On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 15:12 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> This patch has never tried to implement concurrency-safe upsert. It
>> implements the MERGE command as specified by the SQL standard, nothing
>> more, nothing less. Let's not move the goalposts. Googling around, at
>> least MS SQL Server's MERGE command is the same
>> There is nothing embarrassing about it, we just have to document it clearly.
> That article says that SQLServer supplies a locking hint that completely
> removes the issue. Because they use locking, they are able to update in
> place, so there is no need for them to use snapshots.
> Our version won't allow a workaround yet, just for the record.
Like Heikki, I'd rather have the feature without a workaround for the
concurrency issues than no feature. But I have to admit that the
discussion we've had thus far gives me very little confidence that
this code is anywhere close to bug-free. So I think we're going to
end up punting it to 9.2 not so much because it's not concurrency-safe
as because it doesn't work.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-01-03 15:03:39|
|Subject: Re: page compression|
|Previous:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2011-01-03 14:47:31|
|Subject: Re: [PATCH] V3: Idle in transaction cancellation|