Attached patch removes a reference to an executor README section about speculative insertion. In fact, the high-level overview of speculative insertion ended up at the top of execIndexing.c. The executor README was not touched by the ON CONFLICT patch at all.
I don't think it's necessary to refer to execIndexing.c within ExecInsert instead. All the routines being called from ExecInsert() that relate to speculative insertion are in execIndexing.c anyway. -- Peter Geoghegan
From 5ea69e5f98a4eeb4c9f6ffc8f161e3e16f0cda86 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Geoghegan <peter.geoghega...@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 12:28:39 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Remove false comment about speculative insertion There never was an executor README section that discussed speculative insertion in the original ON CONFLICT commit. --- src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c index 874ca6a..1ef76d0 100644 --- a/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c +++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeModifyTable.c @@ -351,8 +351,7 @@ ExecInsert(ModifyTableState *mtstate, * * We loop back here if we find a conflict below, either during * the pre-check, or when we re-check after inserting the tuple - * speculatively. See the executor README for a full discussion - * of speculative insertion. + * speculatively. */ vlock: specConflict = false; -- 1.9.1
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
