Re: PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table
Date: 2017-06-06 22:47:53
Message-ID: CAH2-Wzn-hhxE0Ljpkn=Gc=juP-CN0zawuT3nQNm6H14vHJRDQA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> After sleeping on it, I don't think we need to make that decision here
> though. I think it's better to just move the tuplestores into
> ModifyTableState so that each embedded DML statement has its own, and
> have ModifyTable pass them to the trigger code explicitly.

I suppose you'll need two tuplestores for the ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE
case -- one for updated tuples, and the other for inserted tuples.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Van Fleet 2017-06-06 23:06:12 Re: HACKERS[PROPOSAL] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts
Previous Message Petr Jelinek 2017-06-06 21:51:37 Re: libpqrcv_PQexec() seems to violate latch protocol