| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} |
| Date: | 2014-09-30 18:51:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20140930185149.GS2084@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-09-30 11:49:21 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 09/30/2014 11:20 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> >> > For example, this patch for UPSERT doesn't support updatable views.
> >> > But I can't see anyone that didn't read the patch would know that.
> > By reading the CREATE VIEW docs. Maybe there could stand to be a
> > compatibility note in the main INSERT command, but I didn't want to do
> > that as long as things were up in the air. It might be the case that
> > we figure out good behavior for updatable views.
>
> All of these things sound like good ideas for documentation
> improvements, but hardly anything which should block the patch. It has
> documentation, more than we'd require for a lot of other patches, and
> it's not like the 9.5 release is next month.
What's blocking it is that (afaik) no committer agrees with the approach
taken to solve the concurrency problems. And several (Heikki, Robert,
me) have stated their dislike of the proposed approach.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2014-09-30 18:52:57 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2014-09-30 18:49:21 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} |