On 2014-09-29 15:16:49 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > Wrong. You can't realistically implement the guarantees of UPSERT > > without a corresponding UNIQUE index. > > You definitely can do it; the question is what you consider > reasonable in terms of development effort, performance, and > concurrency.
Right. You can exclusively lock the table and such. The point is just that nobody wants that. I.e. people want to be warned about it. > I think the problem can be solved with non-scary values of pretty much > any two of those. I guess my assumption is that we won't handle the > general case until someone wants to put the substantial development > effort into making the other two acceptable. Which would be a major loss because MERGE is rather useful outside of atomic upsert. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
