From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: WIP: Detecting SSI conflicts before reporting constraint violations |
Date: | 2016-04-08 18:33:32 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaBQ_0ngd+nVo5YP0fT0S-c5P-vYXZRNCYaY+Btw9hm8A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Thomas Munro
> <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Here is a version that includes an attempt to describe the
>> situation in the documentation.
>
> Pushed with minor adjustments to the docs. Mostly I thought your
> new text was more appropriate as just another paragraph than as a
> "note". The previous paragraph was a little imprecise and was in
> some conflict with the new one, so I adjusted that a little, too.
>
> Nice work! I sure wish we had spotted that a one-line check there
> would have covered so much when the feature was first added.
>
> I understand there is considerable feeling that this should be
> back-patched, but I have not done that pending a clear consensus on
> the point, since it is a user-visible behavioral change.
I think that's a good call. Conservatism in back-patching is entirely
warranted.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-04-08 18:34:12 | Re: Fix for OpenSSL error queue bug |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-04-08 18:31:26 | Re: pgsql: CREATE INDEX ... INCLUDING (column[, ...]) |