Re: [HACKERS] Transition tables vs ON CONFLICT - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Transition tables vs ON CONFLICT
Date
Msg-id CAEepm=1ypxjBG-zhCnr2aabp86Kd_a9OppKMMUhhSyQd3yfG3g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to [HACKERS] Transition tables vs ON CONFLICT  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Transition tables vs ON CONFLICT  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Thomas Munro
<thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
>> I suppose you'll need two tuplestores for the ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE
>> case -- one for updated tuples, and the other for inserted tuples.
>
> [...]
>
> Here is a patch implementing the above.  It should be applied on top
> of transition-tuples-from-wctes-v2.patch[2].

Here's a new version of patch #3.  It's rebased on top of
transition-tuples-from-wctes-v3.patch.  I also moved a comment for
execReplication.c out of this patch into patch #2, correcting a
mistake in my pancake stacking.

-- 
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operationson the same table
Next
From: Jeevan Ladhe
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Adding support for Default partition in partitioning