| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE |
| Date: | 2013-10-15 17:29:34 |
| Message-ID: | 20131015172934.GP5300@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-10-15 10:19:17 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Well, I don't know that any of us can claim to have a lock on what the
> > syntax should look like.
>
> Sure. But it's not just syntax. We're talking about functional
> differences too, since you're talking about mandating an update, which
> is a not the same as an "update locked row only conditionally", or a
> delete.
I think anything that only works by breaking visibility rules that way
is a nonstarter. Doing that from the C level is one thing, exposing it
this way seems a bad idea.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2013-10-15 17:29:50 | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-10-15 17:26:11 | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |