Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> What's blocking it is that (afaik) no committer agrees with the approach
> taken to solve the concurrency problems. And several (Heikki, Robert,
> me) have stated their dislike of the proposed approach.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "approach to concurrency
problems". It's not as if a consensus has emerged in favor of another
approach, and if there is to be another approach, the details need to
be worked out ASAP. Even still, I would appreciate it if people could
review the patch on the assumption that those issues will be worked
out. After all, there are plenty of other parts to this that have
nothing to do with value locking - the entire "top half", which has
significant subtleties (some involving concurrency) in its own right,
reasonably well encapsulated from value locking. A couple of weeks
ago, I felt good about the fact that it seemed "time was on my side"
9.5-wise, but maybe that isn't true. Working through the community
process for this patch is going to be very difficult.

I think everyone understands that there could be several ways of
implementing value locking. I really do think it's a well encapsulated
aspect of the patch, though, so even if you hate how I've implemented
value locking, please try and give feedback on everything else. Simon
wanted to start with the user-visible semantics, which makes sense,
but I see no reason to limit it to that.

--
Peter Geoghegan