On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> I agree with your analysis. Let me review...
> [review]
Sounds like we're on the same page.
> Two options for resolution are
>
> 1) Throw SERIALIZABLE error
>
> 2) Implement something similar to EvalPlanQual
> As you say, we already resolve this situation for concurrent updates by
> following the update chain from a row that is visible to the latest row.
> For MERGE the semantics need to be subtely different here: we need to
> follow the update chain to the latest row, but from a row that we
> *can't* see.
>
> MERGE is still very useful without the need for 2), though fails in some
> cases for concurrent use. The failure rate would increase as the number
> of concurrent MERGErs and/or number of rows in source table. Those
> errors are no more serious than are possible now.
>
> So IMHO we should implement 1) now and come back later to implement 2).
> Given right now there may be other issues with 2) it seems unsafe to
> rely on the assumption that we'll fix them by end of release.
Yeah. In fact, I'm not sure we're ever going to want to implement #2
- I think that needs more study to determine whether there's even
something there that makes sense to implement at all. But certainly I
wouldn't count on it happening for 9.1.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company