Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11

On 3 November 2017 at 08:26, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> Therefore, if MERGE eventually uses INSERT .. ON CONFLICT
>>> UPDATE when a relevant unique index exists and does something else,
>>> such as your proposal of taking a strong lock, or Peter's proposal of
>>> doing this in a concurrency-oblivious manner, in other cases, then
>>> those two cases will behave very differently.
>>
>> The *only* behavioural difference I have proposed would be the *lack*
>> of an ERROR in (some) concurrent cases.
>
> I think that's a big difference.  Error vs. non-error is a big deal by
> itself;

Are you saying avoiding an ERROR is a bad or good thing?

> also, the non-error case involves departing from MVCC
> semantics just as INSERT .. ON CONFLICT UPDATE does.

Meaning what exactly? What situation occurs that a user would be concerned with?

Please describe exactly what you mean so we get it clear.

The concurrent behaviour for MERGE is allowed to be
implementation-specific, so we can define it any way we want.

-- 
Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers