Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}
Date: 2014-09-04 20:55:56
Message-ID: CAM3SWZToFBfwxALM6-W8DHZNNLhGsU20AsS8HqwBycxL2Y39nA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> It's not an immediate concern, though.

My immediate concern is to get some level of buy-in about how
everything fits together at a high level. Separately, as discussed in
my opening mail, there is the question of how value locking should
ultimately be implemented. These are two orthogonal questions, or are
pretty close to orthogonal. That helps. It also helps that people have
stopped being confused by the term "value locking" (I think).

I'm tempted to believe that the silence on the question of how things
fit together (such as the lack of discussion of my pgCon talk's
characterization of a "pick any 2" trade-off) means that that's
because everyone agrees with that. That seems pretty naive, though,
because a lot of the issues are very subtle. I think that various
interested people, including Robert and Andres have yet to make their
minds up on that. I'm not sure what Tom thinks of it.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2014-09-04 21:13:41 Re: PQputCopyEnd doesn't adhere to its API contract
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2014-09-04 20:53:23 Re: Commitfest status