Re: MERGE vs REPLACE - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: MERGE vs REPLACE
Date
Msg-id 200511180230.jAI2Uh406548@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: MERGE vs REPLACE  (mark@mark.mielke.cc)
Responses Re: MERGE vs REPLACE  ("Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
mark@mark.mielke.cc wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 10:15:30AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > REPLACE/INSERT ON DUPLICATE UPDATE appears to essentially be a
> > transaction which is supposed to not fail but instead do locking to
> > ensure that it doesn't fail.  This requires predicate locking to be
> > efficient because you want to tell the concurrent transaction "if you
> > have the same key as me, just wait a second and you can do an update
> > 'cause I'm going to create the key if it doesn't exist before I'm done".
> 
> Is the requirement for predicate locking, over and above a unique
> constraint on an index that involves the record key, to deal with
> the scenario of two inserts executing at the same time, both before
> commit?

No.  If you have a primary key you can easily prevent duplicates.  You
need a table lock or predicate locking to prevent duplicates if you do
not have a primary key.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: MERGE vs REPLACE
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: MERGE vs REPLACE