| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Vitaly Burovoy <vitaly(dot)burovoy(at)gmail(dot)com>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Jason Dusek <jason(dot)dusek(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SERIALIZABLE and INSERTs with multiple VALUES |
| Date: | 2016-10-26 20:20:17 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WznQkjrS5yYNDSvbX6rznnXoGpXAfGPc_Pqm_JB4Ccgr9A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 8:07 AM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> My initial thought is that since reducing the false positive rate
> would only help when there was a high rate of conflicts under the
> existing patch, and it would add code complexity and cost for the
> case where conflict rate is low, that we might want to just leave
> the current fix and see whether there are complaints from the field
> about the false positive rate.
>
> Reducing the rate of false positive serialization failures is a
> worthy goal, but it's gotta make sense from a cost/benefit
> perspective.
What are your thoughts on the back-and-forth between myself and Tom
concerning predicate locks within heap_fetch_tuple() path last
weekend? I now think that there might be an outstanding concern about
ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING + SSI here.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2016-10-26 22:18:13 | Re: SERIALIZABLE and INSERTs with multiple VALUES |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2016-10-26 16:30:01 | Re: Limiting to sub-id in a query ? |