| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, 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>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11 |
| Date: | 2018-01-30 19:02:06 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ3DyvyA+CzvoC=XBC9_6cOaA9fhKsAqermS=HD8_9yjQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:56 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Which IMHO is case 4 since it would avoid a concurrent ERROR. This
> meets exactly my original implementation goals as clearly stated on
> this thread, so of course I agree with him and have already said I am
> happy to change the code, though I am still wary of the dangers he
> noted upthread.
>
> If you now agree with doing that and are happy that there are no
> dangers, then I'm happy we now have consensus again and we can
> continue implementing MERGE for PG11.
I can't certify that there are no dangers because I haven't studied it
in that much detail, and I still don't think this is the same thing as
#4 for the reasons I already stated.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-01-30 19:08:44 | Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v9.0 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-01-30 18:57:50 | Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v9.0 |