Re: Re: new patch of MERGE (merge_204) & a question about duplicated ctid

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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: 2010-12-30 04:17:09
Message-ID: AANLkTin1ZP+Jd5vttCxdp1j=sdF8HnN-bwpoMP8owu5U@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Marko Tiikkaja
<marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> wrote:
> I have no idea why it worked in the past, but the patch was never designed
> to work for UPSERT.  This has been discussed in the past and some people
> thought that that's not a huge deal.

I think it's expected to fail in some *concurrent* UPSERT cases. It
should work if it's the only game in town.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-12-30 04:22:14 does anyone still care about synchronous replication?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-12-30 04:14:37 Re: Avoiding rewrite in ALTER TABLE ALTER TYPE