Re: Refactoring speculative insertion with unique indexes a little

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Only one version of this patch has been sent at the beginning of this
> thread, and Heikki has clearly expressed his disagreement about at
> least a portion of it at the beginning of this thread, so I find it
> hard to define it as an "uncontroversial" thing and something that is
> clear to have as things stand. Seeing a new version soon would be a
> good next step I guess.

What is the point in saying this, Michael? What purpose does it serve?

I said "basically uncontroversial", not "uncontroversial". That is a
perfectly accurate characterization of the patch, and if you disagree
than I suggest you re-read the thread. Andres and Heikki were both in
favor of this patch. Heikki and I discussed one particular aspect of
it, and then it trailed off. The only thing that Heikki categorically
stated was that he disliked one narrow aspect of the style of one
thing in one function. I've already said I'm happy to do that.

As things stand, the documentation for amcanunique methods, and the
way they are described internally, is fairly misleading.

--
Peter Geoghegan