* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > Like Heikki, I'd rather have the feature without a workaround for the > concurrency issues than no feature.
I'm still trying to figure out the problem with having the table-level lock, unless we really think people will be doing concurrent MERGE's where they won't overlap..? I'm also a bit nervous about if the result of concurrent MERGE's would actually be correct if we're not taking a bigger lock than row-level (I assume we're taking row-level locks as it goes through..). In general, I also thought/expected to have some kind of UPSERT type capability with our initial MERGE support, even if it requires a big lock and won't operate concurrently, etc. > But I have to admit that the > discussion we've had thus far gives me very little confidence that > this code is anywhere close to bug-free. So I think we're going to > end up punting it to 9.2 not so much because it's not concurrency-safe > as because it doesn't work. That's certainly a concern. :/ Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature