Re: Refactoring speculative insertion with unique indexes a little

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> It isn't true that Heikki was not basically in favor of this. This
> should have been committed as part of the original patch, really.

Maybe he wasn't against the whole thing, but he's posted two messages
to this thread and they can't be read as unequivocally in favor of
these changes. He clearly didn't like at least some of it.

> I hope to avoid needless confusion about the documented (by the
> official documentation) AM interface. Yes, that is

Something maybe got cut off here?

>> I think it's a shame that we haven't gotten this patch dealt with just
>> because when somebody submits a patch in June, it's not very nice for
>> it to still be pending in December, but since this stuff is even
>> further outside my area of expertise than the sorting stuff, and since
>> me and my split personalities only have so many hours in the day, I'm
>> going to have to leave it to somebody else to pick up anyhow. But
>> that's a separate issue from whether this should be back-patched.
>
> Note that I've already proposed a compromise, even though I don't
> think my original position was at all unreasonable. There'd be zero
> real changes (only the addition of the new constant name,
> documentation updates, comment updates, etc) under that compromise (as
> against one change.).

I only see one patch version on the thread.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company