Re: Scanning for insert

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: James William Pye <pgsql(at)jwp(dot)name>
Cc: Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Scanning for insert
Date: 2006-03-02 22:04:06
Message-ID: 12503.1141337046@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

James William Pye <pgsql(at)jwp(dot)name> writes:
> The problem with the AM no longer having the ability to make guarantees about
> lock/state duration seems more or less unavoidable with this two-step process.

So in other words, a two-step process is wrong.

> Besides that I think it's ready for review.

Don't think I really need to read any further ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jonah H. Harris 2006-03-02 22:51:20 INS/UPD/DEL RETURNING for 8.2
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2006-03-02 21:42:28 Re: New pg_dump options: exclude tables/schemas, multiple