Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> 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 http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers