Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Thomas Kellerer
Тема Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
Дата
Msg-id 1509695180333-0.post@n3.nabble.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
Список pgsql-hackers
PMFJI

> We seem to have a few options for PG11
> 
> 1. Do nothing, we reject MERGE
> 
> 2. Implement MERGE for unique index situations only, attempting to
> avoid errors (Simon OP)
> 
> 3. Implement MERGE, but without attempting to avoid concurrent ERRORs
> (Peter)
> 
> 4. Implement MERGE, while attempting to avoid concurrent ERRORs in
> cases where that is possible.

From an end-users point of view I would prefer 3 (or 4 if that won't prevent
this from going into 11) 

INSERT ... ON CONFLICT is great, but there are situations where the
restrictions can get in the way and it would be nice to have an alternative
- albeit with some (documented) drawbacks. As far as I know Oracle also
doesn't guarantee that MERGE is safe for concurrent use - you can still wind
up with a unique key violation. 





--
Sent from: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-hackers-f1928748.html


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

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Simon Riggs
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
Следующее
От: Alvaro Herrera
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] dropping partitioned tables without CASCADE