| From: | Jaime Casanova <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rick Gigger <rick(at)alpinenetworking(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: MERGE vs REPLACE |
| Date: | 2005-11-16 16:33:38 |
| Message-ID: | c2d9e70e0511160833l24dc90fdu4e99b2bc669c8277@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> You could also just add something to the merge syntax like ALLOW
> TABLE LOCK or something. The idea is just that the user can
> explicitly allow the table lock and thus the more complicated merge.
>
The problem here is that many people will see that option and think
it's safe to do it... i mean, many people will shoot themselves in the
foot and the culprit will be PostgreSQL because he let a ready to
shoot gun in a visible place when are kids around
--
regards,
Jaime Casanova
(DBA: DataBase Aniquilator ;)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-11-16 16:37:46 | Re: MERGE vs REPLACE |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-11-16 16:31:20 | Re: OS X 7.4 failure |