Re: MERGE vs REPLACE - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dennis Bjorklund
Subject Re: MERGE vs REPLACE
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.44.0511180542100.17602-100000@zigo.dhs.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: MERGE vs REPLACE  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: MERGE vs REPLACE  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Unless you have a table lock, INSERT has to be before UPDATE, think
> UPDATE, UPDATE (both fail), INSERT, INSERT.

No matter what operation you start with you need a loop that try 
insert/update until one of them succeed like in this example:

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/plpgsql-control-structures.html#PLPGSQL-UPSERT-EXAMPLE

Without a loop you might not get to execute neither the insert nor the 
update. Why? Think about this example:

BEGIN

INSERT      <- fail because there is a row already
           <- before we manage to do the update someone              delete the row (which we can see in the
 default transaction isolation level)
 

UPDATE      <- fail because there is no row so we will loop              and try the insert again
           <- before we manage to do the insert someone else does              an insert

INSERT      <- fail because there is a row already
           <- before we manage to do the update someone              delete the row 
....


You might need to loop any number of times before you manage to perform
one of the two operations. Which operation you should start with depends
on which of the two cases is the common one.

-- 
/Dennis Björklund



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Jim C. Nasby"
Date:
Subject: Loading 7.4 dump to 8.1 with user-custom search_path breaks
Next
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: Improving count(*)