| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} 2.0 |
| Date: | 2015-02-02 16:39:17 |
| Message-ID: | 54CFA835.6070209@vmware.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/18/2015 04:48 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I think that the fundamental, unfixable race condition here is the
> disconnect between index tuple insertion and checking for would-be
> exclusion violations that exclusion constraints naturally have here,
> that unique indexes naturally don't have [1] (note that I'm talking
> only about approach #2 to value locking here; approach #1 isn't in
> V2.0). I suspect that the feature is not technically feasible to make
> work correctly with exclusion constraints, end of story. VACUUM
> interlocking is probably also involved here, but the unfixable race
> condition seems like our fundamental problem.
It's not a fundamental, unfixable race condition. In [1], I gave you
three ideas straight off the top of my head on how that could be fixed.
> Please work with me towards a committable patch.
I'm trying...
> [1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/54A7C76D.3070101@vmware.com
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2015-02-02 16:43:41 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} 2.0 |
| Previous Message | Geoff Winkless | 2015-02-02 16:09:22 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} 2.0 |