Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT IGNORE (and UPDATE) 3.0

From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT IGNORE (and UPDATE) 3.0
Date: 2015-04-16 13:33:16
Message-ID: 552FBA1C.5080201@iki.fi
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 04/16/2015 12:18 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-04-15 18:53:15 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Hmm, ok, I've read the "INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE and logical decoding"
>> thread now, and I have to say that IMHO it's a lot more sane to handle this
>> in ReorderBufferCommit() like Peter first did, than to make the main
>> insertion path more complex like this.
>
> I don't like Peter's way much. For one it's just broken. For another
> it's quite annoying to trigger disk reads to figure out what actual type
> of record something is.
>
> If we go that way that's the way I think it should be done: Whenever we
> encounter a speculative record we 'unlink' it from the changes that will
> be reused for spooling from disk and do nothing further. Then we just
> continue reading through the records. If the next thing we encounter is
> a super-deletion we throw away that record. If it's another type of
> change (or even bettter a 'speculative insertion succeeded' record)
> insert it. That'll still require some uglyness, but it should not be too
> bad.

Sounds good to me.

- Heikki

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jacek Wielemborek 2015-04-16 13:42:18 Performance tuning assisted by a GUI application
Previous Message Abhijit Menon-Sen 2015-04-16 13:24:59 Re: initdb -S and tablespaces