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 1etyxa-0001y6-Qb for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2018 17:04:06 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1etyxZ-00056l-IL for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2018 17:04:05 +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 1etyxZ-00056b-B1 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2018 17:04:05 +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 1etyxV-0003E9-QQ for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2018 17:04:04 +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 w28H3x0R008294; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 12:03:59 -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> <10896.1520521635@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas message dated "Thu, 08 Mar 2018 11:57:05 -0500" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <8292.1520528639.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 12:03:59 -0500 Message-ID: <8293.1520528639@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Robert Haas writes: > Therefore, the only options are (1) ignore the problem, and let a > cross-partition update look entirely like a delete+insert, (2) try to > throw some error in the case where this introduces user-visible > anomalies that wouldn't be visible otherwise, or (3) revert update > tuple routing entirely. I voted for (1), but the consensus was (2). FWIW, I would also vote for (1), especially if the only way to do (2) is stuff as outright scary as this. I would far rather have (3) than this, because IMO, what we are looking at right now is going to make the fallout from multixacts look like a pleasant day at the beach. regards, tom lane