Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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