On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:36:38PM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote: > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > then the conclusion is foregone. To my mind, they should be thought of > > as running in parallel, or at least in an indeterminate order, just > > exactly the same way that different data modifications made in a single > > INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE command are considered to be made simultaneously. > > +1
-1. When people want to see what has gone before, they can use RETURNING clauses. With the "indeterminate order" proposal, they cannot. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
