Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1etxUM-000837-GJ for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2018 15:29:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1etxUL-0007Xb-Cl for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2018 15:29:49 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1etxUL-0007U3-5M for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2018 15:29:49 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1etxUE-000152-D0 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2018 15:29:48 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w28FTd7j011931; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 10:29:39 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Robert Haas cc: Pavan Deolasee , amul sul , Amit Kapila , Stephen Frost , PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Restrict concurrent update/delete with UPDATE of partition key In-reply-to: References: <20180111143641.GJ2416@tamriel.snowman.net> Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas message dated "Thu, 08 Mar 2018 09:15:25 -0500" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <11929.1520522979.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 10:29:39 -0500 Message-ID: <11930.1520522979@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Robert Haas writes: > ... I suppose we could still decide that if we > can't have that, we don't want update tuple routing at all, but I > think that's an overreaction. Between this thread and I am getting the distinct impression that that feature wasn't ready to be committed. I think that reverting it for v11 is definitely an option that needs to be kept on the table. regards, tom lane