Re: BUG #12330: ACID is broken for unique constraints

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>
Cc: "nikita(dot)y(dot)volkov(at)mail(dot)ru" <nikita(dot)y(dot)volkov(at)mail(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: BUG #12330: ACID is broken for unique constraints
Date: 2014-12-26 17:31:31
Message-ID: 1116.1419615091@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Yes. This will deliver a less meaningful error code,

> That depends entirely on whether you care more about whether the
> problem was created by a concurrent transaction or exactly how that
> concurrent transaction created the problem.

Just for starters, a 40XXX error report will fail to provide the
duplicated key's value. This will be a functional regression,
on top of breaking existing code.

I think an appropriate response to these complaints is to fix the
documentation to point out that duplicate-key violations may also
be worthy of retries. (I sort of thought it did already, actually,
but I see no mention of the issue in chapter 13.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2014-12-26 18:38:01 Re: BUG #12330: ACID is broken for unique constraints
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2014-12-26 17:16:15 Re: BUG #12330: ACID is broken for unique constraints

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2014-12-26 17:33:34 Re: Some other odd buildfarm failures
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2014-12-26 17:16:15 Re: BUG #12330: ACID is broken for unique constraints