| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | hlinnaka <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 |
| Date: | 2015-05-05 15:40:30 |
| Message-ID: | 20150505154030.GI9855@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2015-04-26 18:02:06 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Remaining challenges
> =================
One additional thing I'm wondering about is the following: Right now
INSERT ... ON CONFLICT NOTHING does not acquire a row level lock on the
'target' tuple. Are we really ok with that? Because in this form ON
CONFLICT NOTHING really doesn't guarantee much, the conflicting tuple
could just be deleted directly after the check. ISTM we should just
acquire the lock in the same way ExecOnConflictUpdate does. In the
majority of the cases that'll be what users actually expect
behaviourally.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-05-05 17:31:46 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 |
| Previous Message | czezz | 2015-05-05 15:09:17 | Re: display to_timestamp in quotas or convert to char ? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2015-05-05 15:52:07 | INSERT ... ON CONFLICT error messages |
| Previous Message | Sawada Masahiko | 2015-05-05 15:10:33 | Re: Proposal : REINDEX xxx VERBOSE |