| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>, Boxuan Zhai <bxzhai2010(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re: new patch of MERGE (merge_204) & a question about duplicated ctid |
| Date: | 2011-01-03 16:06:15 |
| Message-ID: | 4D21F3F7.4000001@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/03/2011 10:58 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> You can of course LOCK TABLE as a work-around, if that's what you want.
I think we need to state this in large red letters in the docs, if
that's the requirement.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-01-03 16:08:51 | Re: Re: new patch of MERGE (merge_204) & a question about duplicated ctid |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-01-03 16:02:26 | Re: Re: new patch of MERGE (merge_204) & a question about duplicated ctid |