From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
Subject: | Re: Refactoring speculative insertion with unique indexes a little |
Date: | 2016-03-11 13:26:37 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaZ-vQXNriTVa+EAbWrsMeFePQ8_de3PKgnZMWu8=S+ew@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> That's because I believe this is quite broken, as already pointed out.
>>
>> I think I like your approach better.
>
> That makes things far simpler, then.
>
>>> Your premise here is that what Heikki said in passing months ago is
>>> incontrovertibly the right approach. That's ridiculous. I think Heikki
>>> and I could work this out quite quickly, if he engaged, but for
>>> whatever reason he appears unable to. I doubt that Heikki thinks that
>>> about what he said, so why do you?
>>
>> I don't -- I just think you could have sent a patch that addressed all
>> the other points, leave this one as initially submitted, and note that
>> the new submission left it unaddressed because you disagreed.
>
> I'll try to do that soon. I've got a very busy schedule over the next
> couple of weeks, though.
This patch was reviewed during CF 2016-01 and has not been updated for
CF 2016-03. I think we should mark it Returned with Feedback.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-03-11 13:31:14 | Re: dblink: add polymorphic functions. |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-03-11 13:23:48 | Re: Sanity checking for ./configure options? |