public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
To: Simon Riggs <[email protected]>
Cc: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: Pg Hackers <[email protected]>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <[email protected]>
Cc: Zhihong Yu <[email protected]>
Cc: Daniel Westermann <[email protected]>
Cc: Amit Langote <[email protected]>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
Cc: Japin Li <[email protected]>
Cc: Erik Rijkers <[email protected]>
Cc: Jaime Casanova <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: support for MERGE
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2022 11:48:35 +0100
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANbhV-HgNB805QSikNTVSeFOV_jpfGokQpbboQjHntzo9auXRw@mail.gmail.com>

On 2022-Mar-10, Simon Riggs wrote:

> Duplicate rows should produce a uniqueness violation error in one of
> the transactions, assuming there is a constraint to define the
> conflict. Without such a constraint there is no conflict.
> 
> Concurrent inserts are checked by merge-insert-update.spec, which
> correctly raises an ERROR in this case, as documented.

Agreed -- I think this is reasonable.

> Various cases were not tested in the patch - additional patch
> attached, but nothing surprising there.

Thank you, I've included this in all versions of the patch since you
sent it.

> ExecInsert() does not return from such an ERROR, so the code fragment
> appears correct to me.

I think trying to deal with it in a different way (namely: suspend
processing the inserting WHERE NOT MATCHED clause and switch to
processing the row using WHERE MATCHED clauses) would require us use
speculative tokens, similar to the way INSERT ON CONFLICT does.  I'm not
sure we want to go there, but it seems okay to leave that for a later
patch.  Moreover, there would be no compatibility hit from doing so.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera              Valdivia, Chile  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"La persona que no quería pecar / estaba obligada a sentarse
 en duras y empinadas sillas    / desprovistas, por cierto
 de blandos atenuantes"                          (Patricio Vogel)

view thread (3+ messages)

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: support for MERGE
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox