On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:56 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Which IMHO is case 4 since it would avoid a concurrent ERROR. This > meets exactly my original implementation goals as clearly stated on > this thread, so of course I agree with him and have already said I am > happy to change the code, though I am still wary of the dangers he > noted upthread. > > If you now agree with doing that and are happy that there are no > dangers, then I'm happy we now have consensus again and we can > continue implementing MERGE for PG11.
I can't certify that there are no dangers because I haven't studied it in that much detail, and I still don't think this is the same thing as #4 for the reasons I already stated. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
