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

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.

            regards, tom lane