On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 07:16:21PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: > > > But even REPLACE requires predicate locking. There's no real way to get > > > around it. > > > > The point though is that REPLACE is restricted to a type of predicate > > narrow enough to be enforced through a unique-index mechanism, and so > > it's implementable without solving the general case of predicate > > locking. > > > > Predicate locking for narrow cases isn't very hard; it's the general > > case of arbitrary predicates that's hard. > > My feeling is we should implement MERGE for the limited cases we can, > and throw an error for cases we can not (or require table locking), and > then see what reports we get from users.
We should probably throw a notice or warning if we go to a table lock, too. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
