Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
От | Amit Langote |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 54c4e625-4f08-ef7a-478f-3cca3823d2b6@lab.ntt.co.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11 (Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018/03/23 3:42, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > A slightly improved version attached. Apart from doc cleanup based on > earlier feedback, fixed one assertion failure based on Rahila's report. > This was happening when target relation is referenced in the source > subquery. Fixed that and added a test case to test that situation. > > Rebased on current master. I tried these patches (applied 0002 on top of 0001). When applying 0002, I got some apply errors: The next patch would create the file src/test/isolation/expected/merge-delete.out, which already exists! Assume -R? [n] I managed to apply it by ignoring the errors, but couldn't get make check to pass; attached regressions.diffs if you want to take a look. Btw, is 0001 redundant with the latest patch on ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE thread? Can I apply just 0002 on top of that patch? So, I tried that -- that is, skipped your 0001 and instead applied ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE patch, and then applied your 0002. I had to fix a couple of places to get MERGE working correctly for partitioned tables; attached find a delta patch for the fixes I made, which were needed because I skipped 0001 in favor of the ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE patch. But the regression test failure I mentioned above didn't go away, so it seems to have nothing to do with partitioning. Thanks, Amit
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: