On 2015-04-23 12:45:59 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:55 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > I think you misread my statement: I'm saying we don't need the new > > argument anymore, even if we still do the super-deletion in > > heap_delete(). Now that the speculative insertion will not be visible > > (as in seen on a tuple they could delete) to other backends we can just > > do the super deletion if we see that the tuple is a promise one. > > I disagree. I think it's appropriate that the one and only "super" > heap_delete() caller make a point of indicating that that's what it's > doing. The cost is only that the two other such callers must say that > they're not doing it. Super deletion is a special thing, that logical > decoding knows all about for example, and I think it's appropriate > that callers ask explicitly.
Unconvinced. Not breaking an API has its worth. > The second most significant open item is rebasing on top of the recent > RLS changes, IMV. Not sure I agree. That part seems pretty mechanical to me. * The docs aren't suitable for endusers. I think this will take a fair amount of work. * We're not yet sure about the syntax yet. In addition to the keyword issue I'm unconvinced about having two WHERE clauses in the same statement. I think that'll end up confusing users a fair bit. Might still be the best way forward. * The executor integration still isn't pretty, although Heikki is making strides there * I don't think anybody seriously has looked at the planner side yet. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
