| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Subject: | Re: Refactoring speculative insertion with unique indexes a little |
| Date: | 2015-12-17 07:55:22 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZRNnwcXCBVwoTzeBHTDeaJd5tNZ66aCqif-k03kBFTm6w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
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.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kenan Yao | 2015-12-17 08:21:30 | A question regarding LWLock in ProcSleep |
| Previous Message | Gaetano Mendola | 2015-12-17 07:54:49 | pg_tables bug? |