On 09/03/2013 06:18 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 6:25 AM, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> It'll be yet another way for people to get upsert wrong, of course. >> They'll use a wCTE with RETURNING REJECTS to do an UPDATE of the rejects >> w/o locking the table against writes first. Documenting this pitfall >> should be enough, though. > > My preferred solution is to actually provide a variant to lock the > rows implicated in the would-be unique constraint violation. Obviously > that's a harder problem to solve.
That'd certainly be the ideal, but as you say is far from simple, and IIRC prior discussions here have suggested the SSI / predicate locking stuff won't help. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
