From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} |
Date: | 2014-09-30 02:28:56 |
Message-ID: | 542A1568.6040008@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/30/2014 01:59 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 7:21 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> If you were an ORM developer reading the PostgreSQL Release Notes for
>> 9.5, which URL would you visit to see a complete description of the
>> new feature, including how it works concurrently, locking and other
>> aspects. How would you check whether some strange behaviour was a bug,
>> or intentional?
>
> We don't do that with UPDATE, so why would we do it with this? There
> is an existing structure to the documentation that needs to be
> respected.
I tend to agree, so long as there are appropriate cross-references.
See, for example, how window function information was added.
>This is the case even though the EvalPlanQual() mechanism
> is a total Postgres-ism, which can potentially violate snapshot
> isolation (this is not true of Oracle's READ COMMITTED, for example).
That's useful to know, and certainly worth covering in the isolation
portion of the docs.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2014-09-30 02:48:40 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} |
Previous Message | Gavin Flower | 2014-09-30 02:12:00 | Re: Yet another abort-early plan disaster on 9.3 |