| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 |
| Date: | 2015-05-08 19:05:42 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZQNyppCWY8UetMoVF85mUfPjV_8_2Uoy=YwhPTTiSkg1Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Ooops. But shouldn't that have failed 100% of the time in a CCA build?
>> Or is the candidates list fairly noncritical?
>
> The candidates list is absolutely critical.
However, the problematic code path is only a couple of times in the
regression test.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-05-08 19:06:50 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-05-08 19:00:35 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-05-08 19:06:50 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-05-08 19:00:35 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 |