| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: "Value locking" Wiki page |
| Date: | 2014-10-01 13:31:31 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMJ7zsUwTKu3jnC+_pu7gku9etikp9HW5X8u6BAxgGsyCw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1 October 2014 13:43, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
>> That does sound interesting, but I am concerned the semantics may cause
>> issues.
>>
>> If I go to insert a row for 'UK' and find an existing row for
>> 'Europe', do we really want to update the population of Europe to be
>> the population of the UK, simply because the UK and Europe have an
>> exclusion conflict?
>
> Clearly not, but you might want to insert the tuple to another table
> instead, or skip it altogether. Or you might want to UPDATE Europe into
> Continental Europe, and then insert the row for UK.
Not trying to catch you out, just trying to make sure we don't make
technical decisions based upon unachievable ideas.
I can't see value in having upsert work against exclusion constraint
indexes; thus this only needs to work for btrees, or similar exact
indexes.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2014-10-01 13:46:04 | Re: "Value locking" Wiki page |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2014-10-01 13:06:24 | Re: pgcrypto: PGP armor headers |