| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Restrict concurrent update/delete with UPDATE of partition key |
| Date: | 2018-03-08 17:03:59 |
| Message-ID: | 8293.1520528639@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Therefore, the only options are (1) ignore the problem, and let a
> cross-partition update look entirely like a delete+insert, (2) try to
> throw some error in the case where this introduces user-visible
> anomalies that wouldn't be visible otherwise, or (3) revert update
> tuple routing entirely. I voted for (1), but the consensus was (2).
FWIW, I would also vote for (1), especially if the only way to do (2)
is stuff as outright scary as this. I would far rather have (3) than
this, because IMO, what we are looking at right now is going to make
the fallout from multixacts look like a pleasant day at the beach.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-03-08 17:07:31 | Re: [HACKERS] Restrict concurrent update/delete with UPDATE of partition key |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-03-08 16:57:49 | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |