Re: Problems with approach #2 to value locking (INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE patch)

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Problems with approach #2 to value locking (INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE patch)
Date: 2015-01-04 08:14:19
Message-ID: CAM3SWZTRVfmVBJptCUpZSFydso8WJvWTaMZSv+UFmfqpoeu=Vw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:16 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> I looked at the code in more detail, and realized that there were old
> bugs in the exclusion constraint related modifications. I attach a
> delta patch that fixes them. This is a combined patch that is all that
> is needed to apply on top of v1.8.vallock2.tar.gz [1] to have all
> available bugfixes.

I've updated Jeff Janes' test suite to support testing of exclusion
constraints that are equivalent to unique indexes:

https://github.com/petergeoghegan/jjanes_upsert/commit/a941f423e9500b847b1a9d1805ba52cb11db0ae9

(This requires a quick hack to the Postgres source code to accept
exclusion constraints as ON CONFLICT UPDATE arbiters).

So far, everything seems okay with exclusion constraints, as far as I
can determine using the stress tests that we have. This is an
encouraging sign.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2015-01-04 17:18:31 addRangeTableEntry() relies on pstate, contrary to its documentation
Previous Message Noah Misch 2015-01-04 06:38:58 Re: Small doc patch about pg_service.conf