On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 18:23 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 08:11:18AM +0800, Boxuan Zhai wrote:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 4:56 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
The concurrency issues are not involved. I don't know much about
this part. I think we need more
On 2010-08-25 12:44 PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 25/08/10 12:41, Andres Freund wrote:
But randomly loosing tuples will make much more people unhappy. At a
much more problematic point of time (in production).
Hmm, how would you lose tuples?
I think what Andres means is: T1 starts a
On 24/08/10 23:56, Andres Freund wrote:
I have to ask one question: On a short review of the discussion and
the patch I didn't find anything about the concurrency issues
involved (at least nodeModifyTable.c didnt show any).
The SQL spec doesn't require MERGE to be an atomic upsert operation.
On 2010-08-25 9:26 AM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Whats the plan to go forward at that subject? I think the patch needs
to lock tables exclusively (the pg level, not access exclusive) as
long as there is no additional handling...
Well, you can always do LOCK TABLE before calling MERGE if
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 09:26:51AM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 24/08/10 23:56, Andres Freund wrote:
I have to ask one question: On a short review of the discussion and
the patch I didn't find anything about the concurrency issues
involved (at least nodeModifyTable.c didnt show any).
On 25/08/10 12:41, Andres Freund wrote:
But randomly loosing tuples will make much more people unhappy. At a
much more problematic point of time (in production).
Hmm, how would you lose tuples?
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
On 24/08/10 16:35, Boxuan Zhai wrote:
Hi,
I finished the MERGE on inheritance tables. Now comes the merge_v201
Oh, great! That means that all the known issues are fixed now, and all
that's left is fixing any issues raised in review.
I've added this to the September commitfest, but I hope
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:02:41PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 24/08/10 16:35, Boxuan Zhai wrote:
Hi,
I finished the MERGE on inheritance tables. Now comes the merge_v201
Oh, great! That means that all the known issues are fixed now, and
all that's left is fixing any issues raised
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 4:56 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:02:41PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 24/08/10 16:35, Boxuan Zhai wrote:
Hi,
I finished the MERGE on inheritance tables. Now comes the merge_v201
Oh, great! That means that all
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
Whats the plan to go forward at that subject? I think the patch needs
to lock tables exclusively (the pg level, not access exclusive) as
long as there is no additional handling...
That sounds like it might cause more
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 08:11:18AM +0800, Boxuan Zhai wrote:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 4:56 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:02:41PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 24/08/10 16:35, Boxuan Zhai wrote:
Hi,
I finished the MERGE on inheritance
11 matches
Mail list logo
