On 10/02/2014 03:06 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> In my view, it makes sense to fix that, and to make INSERT ... ON
> CONFLICT IGNORE work with exclusion constraints. However, it does not
> make sense to have INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE work with exclusion
> constraints. The user-visible semantics
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> GiST supports exclusion constraints. That is one of the main reasons I want
>> to do promise tuples, instead of locking within the indexam: to support this
>> feature with exclusion constraints.
>
> That does sound interesting, but I am concern
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 6:49 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> Well, if nothing else, it would be nice to fix the concurrency issue we have
> with exclusion constraints today, which is that if two backends insert the
> same value at the same time, they might both get an error, even though you'd
> onl
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 4:23 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Quoting general research and other points about value locking are
> reasonable in the general section, but not in the description for 1.
I also made a similar comparison of #3. I don't think that reflects a bias.
> I'm glad you've called the f
On 10/01/2014 04:46 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 1 October 2014 14:31, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 1 October 2014 13:43, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
That does sound interesting, but I am concerned the semantics may cause
issues.
If I go to insert a row for 'UK' and find an existing row for
'Europe', d
On 10/01/2014 04:31 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 1 October 2014 13:43, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
That does sound interesting, but I am concerned the semantics may cause
issues.
If I go to insert a row for 'UK' and find an existing row for
'Europe', do we really want to update the population of E
On 1 October 2014 14:31, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 1 October 2014 13:43, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
>>> That does sound interesting, but I am concerned the semantics may cause
>>> issues.
>>>
>>> If I go to insert a row for 'UK' and find an existing row for
>>> 'Europe', do we really want to updat
On 1 October 2014 13:43, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> That does sound interesting, but I am concerned the semantics may cause
>> issues.
>>
>> If I go to insert a row for 'UK' and find an existing row for
>> 'Europe', do we really want to update the population of Europe to be
>> the population of
On 10/01/2014 02:42 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 1 October 2014 11:58, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 10/01/2014 01:50 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 1 October 2014 10:44, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
I didn't realize that "promise index tuples" were even seriously
discussed.
I guess that can be made t
On 1 October 2014 11:58, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 10/01/2014 01:50 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>> On 1 October 2014 10:44, Heikki Linnakangas
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I didn't realize that "promise index tuples" were even seriously
>>> discussed.
>>> I guess that can be made to work, too, although I
On 1 October 2014 09:44, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> In the hope of unblocking things, I have created this Wiki page, which
> details the advantages and disadvantages of all 3 approaches that have
> been discussed, as suggested by myself and others:
>
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Value_locking
On 10/01/2014 01:50 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 1 October 2014 10:44, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I didn't realize that "promise index tuples" were even seriously discussed.
I guess that can be made to work, too, although I don't see the point. It
wouldn't work with GiST indexes, for the same reas
On 1 October 2014 10:44, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I didn't realize that "promise index tuples" were even seriously discussed.
> I guess that can be made to work, too, although I don't see the point. It
> wouldn't work with GiST indexes, for the same reasons as page-level locking
> won't work (
On 2014-10-01 12:44:25 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I didn't realize that "promise index tuples" were even seriously discussed.
> I guess that can be made to work, too, although I don't see the point. It
> wouldn't work with GiST indexes, for the same reasons as page-level locking
> won't wor
On 10/01/2014 11:49 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-10-01 01:44:04 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
In the hope of unblocking things, I have created this Wiki page, which
details the advantages and disadvantages of all 3 approaches that have
been discussed, as suggested by myself and others:
http
On 2014-10-01 01:44:04 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> In the hope of unblocking things, I have created this Wiki page, which
> details the advantages and disadvantages of all 3 approaches that have
> been discussed, as suggested by myself and others:
>
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Value_loc
The current approach to "value locking" remains a controversial aspect
of my INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE patch. I must admit that this is a
very complicated area, and it's difficult to keep things straight,
particularly with the relevant discussion scattered all over the
place.
In the hope of un
17 matches
Mail list logo
