| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE |
| Date: | 2013-09-18 09:10:58 |
| Message-ID: | 20130918091058.GC13925@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-09-18 00:54:38 -0500, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > At some point we might to extend that logic to more cases, but that
> > should be separate discussion imo.
>
> This is essentially why I went and added a row locking component over
> your objections.
I didn't object to implementing row level locking. I said that if your
basic algorithm without row level locks is viewn as being broken, it
won't be fixed by implementing row level locking.
What I meant here is just that we shouldn't implement a mode with less
waiting for now even if there might be usecases because that will open
another can of worms.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dean Rasheed | 2013-09-18 11:45:24 | Re: psql sets up cancel handler very early |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-09-18 09:06:31 | Re: System catalog bloat removing safety |