| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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: | 2016-03-12 23:55:10 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZTFK4-dknq7Tar7eRc5JUP3GKdFCUK_06sM8oqPpk4F5g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.
In particular, note that Alvaro eventually sided with me against the
thing that Heikki argued for:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160118195643.GA117199@alvherre.pgsql
Describing what happened that way is unfair on Heikki, because I don't
think he was at all firm in what he said about making the new
UNIQUE_CHECK_SPECULATIVE "like CHECK_UNIQUE_YES, but return FALSE
instead of throwing an error on conflict". We were working through the
design, and it didn't actually come to any kind of impasse.
It's surprising and disappointing to me that this supposed
disagreement has been blown out of all proportion.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-03-13 01:03:54 | Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification |
| Previous Message | Chris Ruprecht | 2016-03-12 23:23:16 | Re: [GENERAL] OS X 10.11.3, psql, bus error 10, 9.5.1 |