From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE |
Date: | 2014-04-17 16:52:53 |
Message-ID: | 20140417165253.GI7443@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 06:40:30PM +0000, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 2:17 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> > I'm just throwing an error when locking the tuple returns
> > HeapTupleInvisible, and the xmin of the tuple is our xid.
>
> I would like some feedback on this point. We need to consider how
> exactly to avoid updating the same tuple inserted by our command.
> Updating a tuple we inserted cannot be allowed to happen, not least
> because to do so causes livelock.
>
> A related consideration that I raised in mid to late January that
> hasn't been commented on is avoiding updating the same tuple twice,
> and where we come down on that with respect to where our
> responsibility to the user starts and ends. For example, SQL MERGE
> officially forbids this, but MySQL's INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE
> seems not to, probably due to implementation considerations.
Where are we on this?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2014-04-17 16:58:42 | Re: Clock sweep not caching enough B-Tree leaf pages? |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-04-17 16:38:13 | Re: Fix memset usage in pgcrypto |