* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> Like Heikki, I'd rather have the feature without a workaround for the
> concurrency issues than no feature.
I'm still trying to figure out the problem with having the table-level
lock, unless we really think people will be doing concurrent MERGE's
where they won't overlap..? I'm also a bit nervous about if the result
of concurrent MERGE's would actually be correct if we're not taking a
bigger lock than row-level (I assume we're taking row-level locks as it
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.
> 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.
That's certainly a concern. :/
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2011-01-03 15:58:44|
|Subject: Re: Re: new patch of MERGE (merge_204) & a question about
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-01-03 15:52:20|
|Subject: Re: Scanning pg_tablespace from walsender|