| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11 |
| Date: | 2018-04-03 03:22:40 |
| Message-ID: | 20180403032240.mkpdgowco7sjrq6f@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2018-04-02 19:40:12 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > So what happens if there's a concurrent insertion of a potentially
> > matching tuple?
>
> It's not a special case. In all likelihood, you get a dup violation.
> This is a behavior that I argued for from an early stage.
Right. I think that should be mentioned in the comment...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-04-03 03:45:30 | Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-04-03 03:18:26 | Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11 |