| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE |
| Date: | 2013-12-30 20:50:17 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZTie8hMzTso3seacuiTw4TcOxygMtJQCKnQ3D0fOw0yww@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2013-12-30 12:29:22 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> But even if that wasn't
>> true, I don't know why you feel the need to go on and on about buffer
>> locking like this months later. Are you trying to be provocative? Can
>> you *please* stop?
>
> ERR? Peter? *You* quoted a statement of mine that only made sense in
> it's original context. And I *did* say that the point about buffer
> locking applied to the *past* version of the patch.
Not so. You suggested it was a bug that needed to be fixed, completely
independently of this effort. You clearly referred to the current
code.
"Yes, it it is different. But, in my opinion, bt_check_unique() doing
so is a bug that needs fixing. Not something that we want to extend."
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2013-12-30 20:53:39 | Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-12-30 20:45:14 | Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE |