Re: [HACKERS] Restrict concurrent update/delete with UPDATE ofpartition key

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 12:03 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> Therefore, the only options are (1) ignore the problem, and let a
>> cross-partition update look entirely like a delete+insert, (2) try to
>> throw some error in the case where this introduces user-visible
>> anomalies that wouldn't be visible otherwise, or (3) revert update
>> tuple routing entirely.  I voted for (1), but the consensus was (2).
>
> FWIW, I would also vote for (1), especially if the only way to do (2)
> is stuff as outright scary as this.  I would far rather have (3) than
> this, because IMO, what we are looking at right now is going to make
> the fallout from multixacts look like a pleasant day at the beach.

Whoa.  Well, that would clearly be bad, but I don't understand why you
find this so scary.  Can you explain further?

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