On 6 November 2017 at 18:35, Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote:

>> APPROACH2 (modified from my original proposal slightly)
> This write-up actually begins to confront the issues that I've raised.
> I'm glad to see this.
>> 1. Join...
>> 2. Apply results for UPDATE, if present not visible via the snapshot
>> taken at 1, do EPQ to ensure we locate current live tuple
>> 3. If still not visible, do speculative insertion if we have a unique
>> index available, otherwise ERROR. If spec insertion fails, go to 2
>> The loop created above can live-lock, meaning that an infinite loop
>> could be created.
> The loop is *guaranteed* to live-lock once you "goto 2". So you might as
> well just throw an error at that point, which is the behavior that I've
> been arguing for all along!
> If this isn't guaranteed to live-lock at "goto 2", then it's not clear
> why. The outcome of step 2 is clearly going to be identical if you don't
> acquire a new MVCC snapshot, but you don't address that.
> You might have meant "apply an equivalent ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE", or
> something like that, despite the fact that the use of ON CONFLICT DO
> NOTHING was clearly implied by the "goto 2". I also see problems with
> that, but I'll wait for you to clarify what you meant before going into
> what they are.

In step 3 we discover that an entry exists in the index for a committed row.

Since we have a unique index we use it to locate the row we know
exists and UPDATE that.

We don't use a new MVCC snapshot, we do what EPQ does. EPQ is already
violating MVCC for UPDATEs, so why does it matter if we do it for
INSERTs also?

Where hides the problem?

Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to