Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
>> What's been bothering me is that so far there has not been an
>> agreement on whether we need to protect against concurrency issues or
>> not. In fact, there has been almost no discussion about the
>> concurrency issues which AIUI have been the biggest single reason we
>> don't have MERGE already.
> Sure there were, they just happened a long time ago. I tried to
> summarize the previous discussion at
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/SQL_MERGE with the following:
> "PostgreSQL doesn't have a good way to lock access to a key value that
> doesn't exist yet--what other databases call key range
> locking...Improvements to the index implementation are needed to allow
> this feature."
This seems to be presuming there's a consensus that that's the way to
implement it, which is news to me. Why wouldn't we try the INSERT
first, and if we get a unique-key failure, do UPDATE instead? I am not
at all in agreement that we ought to build key range locking, nor that
it'd be particularly helpful for this problem even if we had it.
regards, tom lane
