On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 04:44:32AM -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >You can of course LOCK TABLE as a work-around, if that's what you want.
>
> Presuming the code quality issues and other little quirks I've
> documented (and new ones yet to be discovered) can get resolved
> here, and that's a sizeable open question, I could see shipping this
> with the automatic heavy LOCK TABLE in there. Then simple UPSERT
> could work out of the box via a straightforward MERGE.
How about implementing an UPSERT command as "take the lock, do the
merge?" That way, we'd have both the simplicity for the simpler cases
and a way to relax consistency guarantees for those who would like to
do so.
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
