| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: generalized index constraints |
| Date: | 2009-09-19 21:20:51 |
| Message-ID: | 1253395251.23353.203.camel@jdavis |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 16:43 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't understand why this isn't handled exactly the way unique
> constraints are done now. Frankly, the amount of added complexity you
> propose below is enough to make me want to reject the patch forthwith;
> given that it's going to be a relatively little-used feature, the bugs
> are never going to be out of it completely if we do it like this.
Unique constraints lock the index page while the insert is happening.
How am I supposed to do that, when the conflicting values might be
anywhere in the index (circles have no total order)?
It may sound complex, but it basically boils down to a two stage
process:
1. test for conflicts with concurrently-inserting backends
2. test for conflicts that already exist in the index (dirty or not)
I don't think that it's ridiculously complex. In fact, I think there are
relatively few scenarios that will make any real difference, and those
scenarios can be tested with gdb pretty thoroughly.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-09-19 21:54:43 | Re: generic copy options |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-09-19 20:43:21 | Re: WIP: generalized index constraints |