On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 04:44:32AM -0500, Greg Smith wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >You can of course LOCK TABLE as a work-around, if that's what you want. > > Presuming the code quality issues and other little quirks I've > documented (and new ones yet to be discovered) can get resolved > here, and that's a sizeable open question, I could see shipping this > with the automatic heavy LOCK TABLE in there. Then simple UPSERT > could work out of the box via a straightforward MERGE.
How about implementing an UPSERT command as "take the lock, do the merge?" That way, we'd have both the simplicity for the simpler cases and a way to relax consistency guarantees for those who would like to do so. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
