| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Restrict concurrent update/delete with UPDATE of partition key |
| Date: | 2018-03-08 17:07:31 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZzaH3WMhyLg_STX6=J+5iqQ0GvRWBnQihgDarF_mWSYg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 12:03 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)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.
Whoa. Well, that would clearly be bad, but I don't understand why you
find this so scary. Can you explain further?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-03-08 17:14:53 | Re: Testbed for predtest.c ... and some arguable bugs therein |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-03-08 17:03:59 | Re: [HACKERS] Restrict concurrent update/delete with UPDATE of partition key |