Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, 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 19:09:47
Message-ID: 20150508190946.GZ30322@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers

* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) 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. I wonder whether we should get rid of that symbol and
> just drive the test in RelationClose off CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS.
> (Ditto for CATCACHE_FORCE_RELEASE.) Or maybe make CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS
> #define the other two symbols.

Ah. Seems like that'd make sense to me, though I guess I'd prefer just
driving it all off of CCA.

Thanks!

Stephen

In response to

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2015-05-08 19:09:57 Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0
Previous Message Tom Lane 2015-05-08 19:07:38 Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2015-05-08 19:09:57 Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2015-05-08 19:07:42 pgsql: At promotion, archive last segment from old timeline with .parti