On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 4:56 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:02:41PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > On 24/08/10 16:35, Boxuan Zhai wrote:
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >I finished the MERGE on inheritance tables. Now comes the merge_v201
> >
> > Oh, great! That means that all the known issues are fixed now, and
> > all that's left is fixing any issues raised in review.
> >
> > I've added this to the September commitfest, but I hope I'll find
> > some time to look at this before that. I welcome anyone else to
> > review this too!
> I have to ask one question: On a short review of the discussion and
> the patch I didn't find anything about the concurrency issues
> involved (at least nodeModifyTable.c didnt show any).
> Whats the plan to go forward at that subject? I think the patch needs
> to lock tables exclusively (the pg level, not access exclusive) as
> long as there is no additional handling...
>
> Thanks for the work Boxuan!
>
>

The concurrency issues are not involved. I don't know much about this part.
I think we need more discussion on it.



> Andres
>
> PS: The patch reintroduces some whitespace damage...
>

In response to

• Re: gSoC add MERGE command new patch -- merge_v104 at 2010-08-24 20:56:48 from Andres Freund

Responses

• Re: gSoC add MERGE command new patch -- merge_v104 at 2010-08-25 01:23:43 from David Fetter

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2010-08-25 00:11:53
	Subject: No documentation for filtering dictionary feature?
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2010-08-24 23:56:31
	Subject: Re: HS/SR on AIX