On 21 December 2012 08:56, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> It's unreasonable for people to demand a feature yet provide no
> guidance to the person trying (hard) to provide that feature in a
> sensible way. If people genuinely believe case (2) is worth pursuing,
> additional work and input is needed so that KaiGai can make changes in
> time for the 9.3 deadline. Please read what KaiGai has said and
> respond. Since there are so many people reading this thread and
> wanting (2), that seems reasonable to expect.
>
> What I have proposed is that I work on the review for case (1) and
> then if we solve (2) that can go in also. I don't think its reasonable
> to reject the whole feature because of unresolved difficulties around
> one use case, which is what will happen if this is seen as merely a
> debate about defaults.
>
One comment on the code itself -- I think it needs some locking of
rows from the subquery to ensure correct concurrency behaviour when
there are multiple transactions doing updates at the same time.
Regards,
Dean
