From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: UPDATE of partition key |
Date: | 2017-02-24 08:30:39 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob2v8HLcdqUXfhRMHk-UpJyR8JLPr4OLBiqGH6-oMJ=Kg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:18 PM, David G. Johnston
<david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> For my own sanity - the move update would complete successfully and break
> every ctid chain that it touches. Any update lined up behind it in the lock
> queue would discover their target record has been deleted and would
> experience whatever behavior their isolation level dictates for such a
> situation. So multi-partition update queries will fail to update some
> records if they happen to move between partitions even if they would
> otherwise match the query's predicate.
Right. That's the behavior for which I am advocating, on the grounds
that it's the simplest to implement and if we all agree on something
else more complicated later, we can do it then.
> Is there any difference in behavior between this and a SQL writeable CTE
> performing the same thing via delete-returning-insert?
Not to my knowledge.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-02-24 08:37:36 | Re: Add checklist item for psql completion to commitfest review |
Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2017-02-24 08:18:06 | Re: bytea_output output of base64 |