On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Kevin Grittner <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Users hate having to do explicit locking (especially users whose >> names rhyme with Bevin Bittner) > > :-) > > Before you decide to taunt me again, I guess I should point out a > few things here.
Sorry, that was intended as good-natured humor, not taunting. I think that the work you are doing on the serializability stuff is *exactly* the right fix for the concurrency issues associated with MERGE. Coming up with a fix that is specific to MERGE doesn't impress me much. I don't believe that hacking up MERGE will lead to anything other than an ugly mess; it's just a syntax wrapper around an operation that's fundamentally not too easy to make concurrent. SSI will handle it, though, along with, well, all the other cases that are worth worrying about. I don't have quite as much of an allergy to explicit locking as you do, but I'm quite clear that it isn't nearly as good as "it just works". > Should SSI and MERGE both make it into 9.1, [...] So far the thread on large patches has lead to a status report from most of the people working on large patches, and no volunteers to take the lead on reviewing/committing any of them. Although I think both of those patches are worthwhile, and although I intend to spend a very, very large amount of time doing CF work in the next 43 days, I don't foresee committing either of them, and I probably will not have time for a detailed review of either one, either. I feel pretty bad about that, but I just don't have any more bandwidth. :-( -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
