| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | hlinnaka <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, 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> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 |
| Date: | 2015-04-28 02:03:29 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZQRXNqgNp1kAPRsJH+VzQtRx7s6m98LVtxyugDipdcowQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> Given that exclusion constraints can only be used with IGNORE, and
> given that this is so hard to recreate, I'm inclined to conclude that
> it's acceptable. It's certainly way better than risking livelocks by
> not having "deadlock insurance".
Uh, I mean "livelock insurance" here, of course.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2015-04-28 03:31:25 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-04-28 02:02:01 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-04-28 02:35:58 | Re: Allow SQL/plpgsql functions to accept record |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-04-28 02:02:01 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 |