From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Paul <paul(at)salesintel(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #13846: INSERT ON CONFLICT consumessequencersonconflicts |
Date: | 2016-05-06 19:10:22 |
Message-ID: | CAM3SWZTZZ4hvPYY=cM3QUMsdUP7NML7S=L=u=EyLj9yyeHjedw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 12:02 PM, David G. Johnston
<david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> To solve this situation it is likely that some form of "UPDATE ON MISSING
> INSERT" would need to be designed. The insert portion would specify
> "DEFAULT" for sequence columns and would execute nextval() only if the ON
> MISSING portion is executed.
That's unworkable, at least without accepting a bunch of new
edge-cases, like having the insert then have a duplicate violation
involving a value that was determined to not exist in the first phase.
IOW, it's unworkable to do an insert on the basis of an *absence* of
something in an index or in a table (and not get those edge-cases).
Doing so on the basis of the *presence* of a value (i.e. INSERT ... ON
CONFLICT DO UPDATE as implemented) lets the implementation clamp down
on race conditions enough to provide those useful user-visible
guarantees about getting 1 of 2 possible outcomes.
There are multiple definitions of a value "existing" here that are in
tension here. It's rather complicated.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2016-05-06 19:15:18 | Re: BUG #13846: INSERT ON CONFLICT consumessequencersonconflicts |
Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2016-05-06 19:02:33 | Re: BUG #13846: INSERT ON CONFLICT consumessequencersonconflicts |