| From: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Help with 9.5 feature wiki page |
| Date: | 2015-05-21 08:38:28 |
| Message-ID: | CAA-aLv5K10WTRwU9Ra4XogNXZK1b5EAZjm9uX6scP4gs6r_Otw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On 21 May 2015 at 04:07, Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 7:52 PM, Peter Geoghegan
> <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Due to some MediaWiki weirdness, I cannot login to edit it.
>
> BTW, I wanted to edit the description of UPSERT. It's not true that
> the use of a CTE can be considered a workaround. That pattern can
> result in a spurious duplicate violation error with concurrent
> upserters, and so I'd definitely discourage it. The only workarounds
> that are robust involve subtransactions, like the plpgsql example in
> the docs, and there is no declarative way to do that. You need to
> catch a duplicate violation and retry to get a robust insert-or-update
> outcome.
I'd still regard it as a workaround, just with concurrency risks. But
perhaps it's best to remove any mention of a workaround altogether.
--
Thom
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2015-05-21 12:37:21 | Re: Help with 9.5 feature wiki page |
| Previous Message | Martin Popelak | 2015-05-21 08:34:27 | Bundling pgsql to commercial product |