| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "nikita(dot)y(dot)volkov(at)mail(dot)ru" <nikita(dot)y(dot)volkov(at)mail(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #12330: ACID is broken for unique constraints |
| Date: | 2014-12-26 17:31:31 |
| Message-ID: | 1116.1419615091@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Yes. This will deliver a less meaningful error code,
> That depends entirely on whether you care more about whether the
> problem was created by a concurrent transaction or exactly how that
> concurrent transaction created the problem.
Just for starters, a 40XXX error report will fail to provide the
duplicated key's value. This will be a functional regression,
on top of breaking existing code.
I think an appropriate response to these complaints is to fix the
documentation to point out that duplicate-key violations may also
be worthy of retries. (I sort of thought it did already, actually,
but I see no mention of the issue in chapter 13.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2014-12-26 18:38:01 | Re: BUG #12330: ACID is broken for unique constraints |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2014-12-26 17:16:15 | Re: BUG #12330: ACID is broken for unique constraints |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-12-26 17:33:34 | Re: Some other odd buildfarm failures |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2014-12-26 17:16:15 | Re: BUG #12330: ACID is broken for unique constraints |