On 1 October 2014 20:54, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote:
> On 10/01/2014 02:34 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> When later insert scans see the promise tuple they perform
>> XactLockTableWait() and when they get control they look again for the
>> key. If they find a promise tuple with an aborted xid they replace
>> that value with their own xid and continue as a). Otherwise b).
> XactLockTableWait() waits until the end of transaction, that's not you want
> here. If the backend that inserted the promise tuple decides to not proceed
> with the insertion, and removes the promise tuple, the backend waiting on it
> needs to be woken up more or less immediately, not when the transaction
> completes.

There is no "remove promise tuple" part of the above design.

> I had this exact same issue in my earlier patch versions, fixed it with a
> new kind of heavy-weight lock, and a new field in PGPROC
> (http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/52d00d2d.6030...@vmware.com). That
> wasn't very pretty, but it got the job done. Some other design might be
> better.

Currently, if some fool developer decides to insert rows that already
duplicate values in the table, then currently he inserts a heap row,
then sees a potential conflict in the index and waits for the
conflicting xact to end. His fool insert, his wait. That's how btree
does this now.
I don't see any reason why we need to do better for Upsert.

If the row already exists we need to be able to quickly change into an
update, but we still only support one write xact at a time.

The value in the index needs to be protected by a block level lock, so
we can check it quickly, but the eventual heap work is serialized by
transactional semantics.

I think a little perspective is due here and we should stick to the
main use case, not cater for bizarre edge cases. What we are looking
for is something that can decide whether it is an insert or an update
and progress quickly with that. It needs to be correct, but there is
no requirement to be faster than currently possible, in the case of

Any form of tuple locking that uses the general lock manager will not
be usable. I can't see it is worth the overhead of doing that to
protect against deadlocks that would only be experienced by people
doing foolish things.

Please let's not over think and over engineer this. No flying cars please.

 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to