| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE and logical decoding |
| Date: | 2015-02-25 23:40:43 |
| Message-ID: | 54EE5D7B.2050802@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/19/15 4:11 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Thoughts? Can't say that I've given conflict resolution for
>> >multi-master systems a great deal of thought before now, so I might be
>> >quite off the mark here.
> I don't think conflict resolution actually plays a role here. This is
> about consistency inside a single system, not consistency across
> systems.
Isn't it possible that a multi-master resolution algo would want to know
that something was an UPSERT though? ISTM handling that differently than
a plain INSERT/UPDATE is something you might well want to do.
For example, if you're using last-wins conflict resolution and UPSERTs
on two nodes overlap, wouldn't you want to know that the second UPSERT
was an UPSERT and not a plain INSERT?
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-02-25 23:44:00 | Re: contrib/fuzzystrmatch/dmetaphone.c license |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2015-02-25 23:32:08 | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |