On 21 December 2012 08:56, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > It's unreasonable for people to demand a feature yet provide no > guidance to the person trying (hard) to provide that feature in a > sensible way. If people genuinely believe case (2) is worth pursuing, > additional work and input is needed so that KaiGai can make changes in > time for the 9.3 deadline. Please read what KaiGai has said and > respond. Since there are so many people reading this thread and > wanting (2), that seems reasonable to expect. > > What I have proposed is that I work on the review for case (1) and > then if we solve (2) that can go in also. I don't think its reasonable > to reject the whole feature because of unresolved difficulties around > one use case, which is what will happen if this is seen as merely a > debate about defaults. >
One comment on the code itself -- I think it needs some locking of rows from the subquery to ensure correct concurrency behaviour when there are multiple transactions doing updates at the same time. Regards, Dean -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
