Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:56 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Which IMHO is case 4 since it would avoid a concurrent ERROR. This
> meets exactly my original implementation goals as clearly stated on
> this thread, so of course I agree with him and have already said I am
> happy to change the code, though I am still wary of the dangers he
> noted upthread.
>
> If you now agree with doing that and are happy that there are no
> dangers, then I'm happy we now have consensus again and we can
> continue implementing MERGE for PG11.

I can't certify that there are no dangers because I haven't studied it
in that much detail, and I still don't think this is the same thing as
#4 for the reasons I already stated.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company