On 24/08/10 23:56, Andres Freund wrote:
> I have to ask one question: On a short review of the discussion and
> the patch I didn't find anything about the concurrency issues
> involved (at least nodeModifyTable.c didnt show any).
The SQL spec doesn't require MERGE to be an atomic "upsert" operation.
> Whats the plan to go forward at that subject? I think the patch needs
> to lock tables exclusively (the pg level, not access exclusive) as
> long as there is no additional handling...
Well, you can always do LOCK TABLE before calling MERGE if that's what
you want, but I don't think doing that automatically would make people
happy.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
