| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 19:06:50 |
| Message-ID: | 20150508190650.GY30322@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
* Peter Geoghegan (pg(at)heroku(dot)com) wrote:
> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> However, the problematic code path is only a couple of times in the
> regression test.
To Tom's point, it shouldn't actually matter how many times it's in the
regression test, should it? I'm not saying you're wrong about the
cause, but it's certainly interesting that it didn't consistently blow
up with CCA..
Thanks!
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-05-08 19:07:38 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-05-08 19:05:42 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-05-08 19:07:38 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-05-08 19:05:42 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 |