From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE |
Date: | 2013-12-27 07:54:53 |
Message-ID: | 20131227075453.GB17584@alap2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-12-26 21:11:27 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I'm generally opposed to making value locks of any stripe be held for
> more than an instant (so we should not hold them indefinitely pending
> another conflicting xact finishing). It's not just that it's
> convenient to my implementation; I also happen to think that it makes
> no sense. Should you really lock a value in an earlier unique index
> for hours, pending conflicter xact finishing, because you just might
> happen to want to insert said value, but probably not?
There are some advantages: For one, it allows you to guarantee forward
progress if you do it right, which surely isn't a bad propert to
have. For another, it's much more in line with the way normal uniqueness
checks works.
Possibly the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, but that's a far cry
from making no sense.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-12-27 07:57:46 | Re: BDR-project |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-12-27 07:51:19 | Re: "stuck spinlock" |