On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Looks like MERGE is progressing well. > > At 2010 Dev Mtg, we put me down to work on making merge work > concurrently. That was garbled slightly and had me down as working on > predicate locking which is the general solution to the problem. > > Do we still need me to work on concurrent MERGE, or is that included in > the current MERGE patch (can't see it), or is that covered elsewhere > (for example Kevin Grittner's recent work)? > > Still happy to do work as proposed, just checking still required.
I suspect Kevin's patch will solve it if using a sufficiently high transaction isolation level, but something else might be needed otherwise. However, I confess to ignorance as to the underlying issues? Why is MERGE worse in this regard than, say, UPDATE? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
