Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE
| От | Andres Freund |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 20131015172934.GP5300@awork2.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-10-15 10:19:17 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > > Well, I don't know that any of us can claim to have a lock on what the > > syntax should look like. > > Sure. But it's not just syntax. We're talking about functional > differences too, since you're talking about mandating an update, which > is a not the same as an "update locked row only conditionally", or a > delete. I think anything that only works by breaking visibility rules that way is a nonstarter. Doing that from the C level is one thing, exposing it this way seems a bad idea. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: