Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > On 09/30/2014 07:15 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> At the risk of pushing people away from this POV, I'll point out >> that this is somewhat similar to what we do for unlogged bulk loads >> -- if all the conditions for doing it the fast way are present, we >> do it the fast way; otherwise it still works, but slower. > > Except that switching between fast/slow bulk loads affects *only* the > speed of loading, not the locking rules. Having a statement silently > take a full table lock when we were expecting it to be concurrent > (because, for example, the index got rebuilt and someone forgot the > UNIQUE) violates POLA from my perspective. I would not think that an approach which took a full table lock to implement the more general case would be accepted. -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
