Re: Refactoring speculative insertion with unique indexes a little

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
>>> In any case, at this point 9.5 is really aimed to be stabilized, so
>>> targeting only master is a far saner approach IMO for this patch.
>>> Pushing that in 9.5 a couple of months back may have given enough
>>> reason to do so... But well life is life.
>>
>> No, this really isn't an optimization at all.
>
> I should add: I think that the chances of this patch destabilizing the
> code are very slim, once it receives the proper review. Certainly, I
> foresee no possible downside to not inserting the doomed IndexTuple,
> since it's guaranteed to have its heap tuple super-deleted immediately
> afterwards.

I am no committer, just a guy giving an opinion about this patch and I
have to admit that I have not enough studied the speculative insertion
code to have a clear technical point of view on the matter, but even
if the chances of destabilizing the code are slim, it does not seem a
wise idea to me to do that post-rc1 and before a GA as there are
people testing the code as it is now. Now per the two points listed in
the first sentence in this paragraph, perhaps this opinion is fine as
moot :) I didn't get much involved in the development of this code
after all.

> That's the only real behavioral change proposed here. So, I would
> prefer it if we got this in before the first stable release of 9.5.

Yeah, I got this one.
--
Michael