| From: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE |
| Date: | 2013-12-30 20:53:39 |
| Message-ID: | 52C1DD53.2020504@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/30/2013 12:45 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-12-30 12:29:22 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> But even if that wasn't
>> true, I don't know why you feel the need to go on and on about buffer
>> locking like this months later. Are you trying to be provocative? Can
>> you *please* stop?
>
> ERR? Peter? *You* quoted a statement of mine that only made sense in
> it's original context. And I *did* say that the point about buffer
> locking applied to the *past* version of the patch.
Alright this seems to have gone from confusion about the proposal to
confusion about the confusion. Might I suggest a cooling off period and
a return to the discussion in possibly a Wiki page where the
points/counter points could be laid out more efficiently?
>
>
> Andres
>
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2013-12-31 00:53:58 | Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2013-12-30 20:50:17 | Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE |