Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT IGNORE (and UPDATE) 3.0

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:55 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> I think you misread my statement: I'm saying we don't need the new
> argument anymore, even if we still do the super-deletion in
> heap_delete(). Now that the speculative insertion will not be visible
> (as in seen on a tuple they could delete) to other backends we can just
> do the super deletion if we see that the tuple is a promise one.

I disagree. I think it's appropriate that the one and only "super"
heap_delete() caller make a point of indicating that that's what it's
doing. The cost is only that the two other such callers must say that
they're not doing it. Super deletion is a special thing, that logical
decoding knows all about for example, and I think it's appropriate
that callers ask explicitly.

>> > * breinbaas on IRC just mentioned that it'd be nice to have upsert as a
>> > link in the insert. Given that that's the pervasive term that doesn't
>> > seem absurd.
>>
>> Not sure what you mean. Where would the link appear?
>
> The index, i.e. it'd just be another indexterm. It seems good to give
> people a link.

Oh, okay. Sure. Done on Github.

>> * We need to figure out the tuple lock strength details. I think this
>> is doable, but it is the greatest challenge to committing ON CONFLICT
>> UPDATE at this point. Andres feels that we should require no greater
>> lock strength than an equivalent UPDATE. I suggest we get to this
>> after committing the IGNORE variant. We probably need to discuss this
>> some more.
>
> I want to see a clear way forward before we commit parts. It doesn't
> have to be completely iron-clad, but the way forward should be pretty
> clear. What's the problem you're seeing right now making this work? A
> couple days on jabber you seemed to see a way doing this?

I was really just identifying it as the biggest problem the patch now
faces, and I want to face those issues down ASAP. Of course, that's
good, because as you say it is a small problem in an absolute sense.
The second most significant open item is rebasing on top of the recent
RLS changes, IMV.

I can see yourself and Heikki continuing to change small stylistic
things, which I expect to continue for a little while. That's fine,
but naturally I want to be aggressive about closing off these open
issues that are not just general clean-up, but have some small level
of risk of becoming more significant blockers.

> The reason I think this has to use the appropriate lock level is that
> it'll otherwise re-introduce the deadlocks that fk locks resolved. Given
> how much pain we endured to get fk locks, that seems like a bad deal.

Right.

--
Peter Geoghegan