Re: Refactoring speculative insertion with unique indexes a little

Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > If you refuse to post an updated version of the patch until Heikki
> > weighs in some more, and given that Heikki has (for the purposes of this
> > patch) completely vanished, I think we should mark this rejected.
>
> I don't refuse. I just don't want to waste anyone's time. I will
> follow all of Heikki's feedback immediately, except this:
>
> "I think it'd be better to define it as "like CHECK_UNIQUE_YES, but
> return FALSE instead of throwing an error on conflict". The difference
> is that the aminsert would not be allowed to return FALSE when there
> is no conflict".
>
> That's because I believe this is quite broken, as already pointed out.

I think I like your approach better.

> > If somebody else is open to reviewing the patch, I think that'd be
> > another way to move forward, but presumably they would start from a
> > version with the discussed changes already fixed. Otherwise it's a
> > waste of time.
>
> Your premise here is that what Heikki said in passing months ago is
> incontrovertibly the right approach. That's ridiculous. I think Heikki
> and I could work this out quite quickly, if he engaged, but for
> whatever reason he appears unable to. I doubt that Heikki thinks that
> about what he said, so why do you?

I don't -- I just think you could have sent a patch that addressed all
the other points, leave this one as initially submitted, and note that
the new submission left it unaddressed because you disagreed.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services