| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 |
| Date: | 2015-05-08 19:13:04 |
| Message-ID: | 18911.1431112384@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> writes:
>> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Ooops. But shouldn't that have failed 100% of the time in a CCA build?
>>> Or is the candidates list fairly noncritical?
>> The candidates list is absolutely critical.
> Oh, I was confusing CCA with RELCACHE_FORCE_RELEASE, which does something
> a bit different.
Actually, looking closer, the quoted code is simply not broken without
RELCACHE_FORCE_RELEASE: without that, neither heap_close nor index_close
will do anything that could cause a cache flush. So while it's certainly
good pratice to move that lappend_oid call up, it does not explain the
observed symptoms. We still need some more investigation here.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-05-08 19:16:00 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-05-08 19:09:57 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-05-08 19:16:00 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-05-08 19:09:57 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 |