Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
Date
Msg-id CANP8+j+f-=5_1HPLgag8FPFrdJPKgMmMr0s=cFH1DzZqsPcZ5g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 26 March 2018 at 16:09, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 5:53 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> Since we now have MVCC catalog scans, all the name lookups are
>> performed using the same snapshot so in the above scenario the newly
>> created object would be invisible to the second name lookup.
>
> That's not true, because each lookup would be performed using a new
> snapshot -- not all under one snapshot.

You're saying we take a separate snapshot for each table we lookup?
Sounds weird to me.

So this error could happen in SELECT, UPDATE, DELETE or INSERT as well.

Or you see this as something related specifically to MERGE, if so how?
Please explain what you see.

-- 
Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Vladimir Sitnikov
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal: http2 wire format
Next
From: Vladimir Sitnikov
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal: http2 wire format