| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE |
| Date: | 2013-09-26 11:43:15 |
| Message-ID: | 20130926114315.GC31933@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 08:48:11PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > This thread had a lot of discussion about bloating. I wonder, does the
> > code check to see if there is a matching row _before_ adding any data?
>
> That's pretty much what the patch does.
So, I guess my question is if we are only bloating on a contended
operation, do we expect that to happen so much that bloat is a problem?
I think the big objection to the patch is the additional code complexity
and the potential to slow down other sessions. If it is only bloating
on a contended operation, are these two downsides worth avoiding the
bloat?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-09-26 11:43:24 | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2013-09-26 11:41:01 | Re: pgbench - exclude pthread_create() from connection start timing |