| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} 2.0 |
| Date: | 2015-02-06 21:51:00 |
| Message-ID: | 20150206215100.GT9349@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 04:49:46PM -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2015 at 01:06 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > A first (not actually that quick :() look through the patches to see
> > what actually happened in the last months. I didn't keep up with the
> > thread.
>
> So, let me get this out of the way: This is the first in-depth
> technical review that this work has had in a long time. Thank you for
> your help here.
I looked at all the patches too. The patch is only 9k lines, not huge.
Other than the locking part, the biggest part of this patch is adjusting
things so that an INSERT can change into an UPDATE. The code that
handles SELECT/INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE is already complex, and this makes
it even more so. I have no idea how we can be sure we have hit every
single case, but I am also unclear how we will _ever_ know we have hit
them all.
We know people want this feature, and this patch seems to be our best
bet to getting it. If we push this off for 9.6, I am not sure what that
buys us.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2015-02-07 00:02:10 | Re: New CF app deployment |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-02-06 21:00:52 | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |