Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
Date: 2018-01-29 16:44:22
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 04:34:48PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I agree with all of the above.
> In terms of timing of commits, I have marked the patch Ready For
> Committer. To me that signifies that it is ready for review by a
> Committer prior to commit.
> In case of doubt, I would not even suggest committing this if it had
> any concurrency issues. That would be clearly unacceptable.
> The only discussion would be about the word "unfinished". I'm not
> clear why this patch, which has current caveats all clearly indicated
> in the docs, differs substantially from other projects that have
> committed their work ahead of having everything everybody wants, such
> as replication, materialized views, parallel query, partitioning,
> logical decoding etc.. All of those features had caveats in the first
> release in which they were included and many of them were committed
> prior to the last CF. We are working now to remove those caveats. Why
> is this different? It shouldn't be. If unfinished means it has caveats
> that is different to unfinished meaning crappy, risky, contentious
> etc..

I think the question is how does it handle cases it doesn't support?
Does it give wrong answers? Does it give a helpful error message? Can
you summarize that?

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Konstantin Knizhnik 2018-01-29 16:46:13 Re: [HACKERS] Secondary index access optimizations
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-01-29 16:37:09 Re: dsa_allocate() faliure