Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+Tgmob2v8HLcdqUXfhRMHk-UpJyR8JLPr4OLBiqGH6-oMJ=Kg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:18 PM, David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote: > For my own sanity - the move update would complete successfully and break > every ctid chain that it touches. Any update lined up behind it in the lock > queue would discover their target record has been deleted and would > experience whatever behavior their isolation level dictates for such a > situation. So multi-partition update queries will fail to update some > records if they happen to move between partitions even if they would > otherwise match the query's predicate. Right. That's the behavior for which I am advocating, on the grounds that it's the simplest to implement and if we all agree on something else more complicated later, we can do it then. > Is there any difference in behavior between this and a SQL writeable CTE > performing the same thing via delete-returning-insert? Not to my knowledge. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: