Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operationson the same table

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Peter Geoghegan
Тема Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operationson the same table
Дата
Msg-id CAH2-Wzn-hhxE0Ljpkn=Gc=juP-CN0zawuT3nQNm6H14vHJRDQA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operationson the same table  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operationson the same table  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operationson the same table  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения 
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Thomas Munro
<thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> After sleeping on it, I don't think we need to make that decision here
> though.  I think it's better to just move the tuplestores into
> ModifyTableState so that each embedded DML statement has its own, and
> have ModifyTable pass them to the trigger code explicitly.

I suppose you'll need two tuplestores for the ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE
case -- one for updated tuples, and the other for inserted tuples.


-- 
Peter Geoghegan

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Petr Jelinek
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] libpqrcv_PQexec() seems to violate latch protocol
Следующее
От: "Jim Van Fleet"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PROPOSAL] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts