Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> <> wrote:
> > If you refuse to post an updated version of the patch until Heikki
> > weighs in some more, and given that Heikki has (for the purposes of this
> > patch) completely vanished, I think we should mark this rejected.
> I don't refuse. I just don't want to waste anyone's time. I will
> follow all of Heikki's feedback immediately, except this:
> "I think it'd be better to define it as "like CHECK_UNIQUE_YES, but
> return FALSE instead of throwing an error on conflict". The difference
> is that the aminsert would not be allowed to return FALSE when there
> is no conflict".
> That's because I believe this is quite broken, as already pointed out.

I think I like your approach better.

> > If somebody else is open to reviewing the patch, I think that'd be
> > another way to move forward, but presumably they would start from a
> > version with the discussed changes already fixed.  Otherwise it's a
> > waste of time.
> Your premise here is that what Heikki said in passing months ago is
> incontrovertibly the right approach. That's ridiculous. I think Heikki
> and I could work this out quite quickly, if he engaged, but for
> whatever reason he appears unable to. I doubt that Heikki thinks that
> about what he said, so why do you?

I don't -- I just think you could have sent a patch that addressed all
the other points, leave this one as initially submitted, and note that
the new submission left it unaddressed because you disagreed.

Álvaro Herrera      
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to