Kevin Grittner <kgri...@ymail.com> writes: > Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Yes. This will deliver a less meaningful error code,
> That depends entirely on whether you care more about whether the > problem was created by a concurrent transaction or exactly how that > concurrent transaction created the problem. Just for starters, a 40XXX error report will fail to provide the duplicated key's value. This will be a functional regression, on top of breaking existing code. I think an appropriate response to these complaints is to fix the documentation to point out that duplicate-key violations may also be worthy of retries. (I sort of thought it did already, actually, but I see no mention of the issue in chapter 13.) regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers