Re: Re: new patch of MERGE (merge_204) & a question about duplicated ctid
От | Marko Tiikkaja |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: new patch of MERGE (merge_204) & a question about duplicated ctid |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4D1BF24B.6000306@cs.helsinki.fi обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: new patch of MERGE (merge_204) & a question about duplicated ctid (Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Re: new patch of MERGE (merge_204) & a question about
duplicated ctid
Re: Re: new patch of MERGE (merge_204) & a question about duplicated ctid |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2010-12-30 4:39 AM +0200, Greg Smith wrote: > And that got me back again to concurrent testing. > > Moving onto next two problems...the basic MERGE feature seems to have > stepped backwards a bit too. I'm now seeing these quite often: > > ERROR: duplicate key value violates unique constraint > "pgbench_accounts_pkey" > DETAIL: Key (aid)=(176641) already exists. > STATEMENT: MERGE INTO pgbench_accounts t USING (SELECT 176641,1+(176641 > / 1000000)::integer,168,'') AS s(aid,bid,balance,filler) ON s.aid=t.aid > WHEN MATCHED THEN UPDATE SET abalance=abalance + s.balance WHEN NOT > MATCHED THEN INSERT VALUES(s.aid,s.bid,s.balance,s.filler); > > On my concurrent pgbench test, which had been working before. I have no idea why it worked in the past, but the patch was never designed to work for UPSERT. This has been discussed in the past and some people thought that that's not a huge deal. Regards, Marko Tiikkaja
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: