| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} 2.0 |
| Date: | 2015-02-20 21:07:19 |
| Message-ID: | 54E7A207.5070301@vmware.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 02/20/2015 10:39 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
>> So, um, are you agreeing that there is no problem? Or did I misunderstand?
>> If you see a potential issue here, can you explain it as a simple list of
>> steps, please.
>
> Yes. I'm saying that AFAICT, there is no livelock hazard provided
> other sessions must do the pre-check (as they must for ON CONFLICT
> IGNORE). So I continue to believe that they must pre-check, which you
> questioned.
> ...
> Hard to break down the problem into steps, since it isn't a problem
> that I was able to recreate (as a noticeable livelock).
Then I refuse to believe that the livelock hazard exists, without the
pre-check. If you have a livelock scenario in mind, it really shouldn't
be that difficult to write down the list of steps.
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2015-02-20 21:08:35 | Re: POLA violation with \c service= |
| Previous Message | Eric Grinstein | 2015-02-20 21:05:13 | Idea: GSoC - Query Rewrite with Materialized Views |