Re: [HACKERS] Minor bug affecting ON CONFLICT lock wait log messages

Stephen Frost wrote: > I don't think either message really fits here, unfortunately. We're not > actually checking the uniqueness of someone else's tuple here either, > after all, we're waiting to see what happens with their tuple because > ours won't be unique if it goes in with that other

Re: [HACKERS] Minor bug affecting ON CONFLICT lock wait log messages

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> Basically, unlike with the similar nbtinsert.c code, we're checking >> someone else's tuple in the speculative insertion >> check_exclusion_or_unique_constraint() case that was changed (or it's >> an exclusion

Re: [HACKERS] Minor bug affecting ON CONFLICT lock wait log messages

Peter, * Peter Geoghegan (p...@heroku.com) wrote: > Thinking about this again, I think we should use > XLTW_InsertIndexUnique after all. The resemblance of the > check_exclusion_or_unique_constraint() code to the nbtinsert.c code > seems only superficial on second thought. So, I propose fixing

Re: [HACKERS] Minor bug affecting ON CONFLICT lock wait log messages

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> > We wouldn't want to end up returning different error messages for the >> > same command under the same conditions just based, which is what we'd >> > potentially end up doing if we used XLTW_InsertIndexUnique here. >>

Re: [HACKERS] Minor bug affecting ON CONFLICT lock wait log messages

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 6:18 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Agreed. I'm going to play with it a bit more but barring objections, > I'll commit and back-patch Peter's patch. Thanks for taking care of this, Stephen. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] Minor bug affecting ON CONFLICT lock wait log messages

* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Julien Rouhaud (julien.rouh...@dalibo.com) wrote: > > > XLTW_InsertIndexUnique is used when building a unique index, but this is > > just a check, and more to the point, it's actually a re-check of what > > we're

Re: [HACKERS] Minor bug affecting ON CONFLICT lock wait log messages

Stephen Frost wrote: > * Julien Rouhaud (julien.rouh...@dalibo.com) wrote: > XLTW_InsertIndexUnique is used when building a unique index, but this is > just a check, and more to the point, it's actually a re-check of what > we're doing in nbinsert.c where we're already using XLTW_InsertIndex. >

Re: [HACKERS] Minor bug affecting ON CONFLICT lock wait log messages

On 15/03/2016 14:18, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Julien Rouhaud (julien.rouh...@dalibo.com) wrote: >> On 15/03/2016 03:30, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: Attached patch fixes a bug reported privately by Stephen this morning.

Re: [HACKERS] Minor bug affecting ON CONFLICT lock wait log messages

* Julien Rouhaud (julien.rouh...@dalibo.com) wrote: > On 15/03/2016 03:30, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > >> Attached patch fixes a bug reported privately by Stephen this morning. > > > > Bump. > > > > I would like to see

Re: [HACKERS] Minor bug affecting ON CONFLICT lock wait log messages

On 15/03/2016 03:30, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> Attached patch fixes a bug reported privately by Stephen this morning. > > Bump. > > I would like to see this in the next point release. It shouldn't be > hard to review. >

Re: [HACKERS] Minor bug affecting ON CONFLICT lock wait log messages

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > Attached patch fixes a bug reported privately by Stephen this morning. Bump. I would like to see this in the next point release. It shouldn't be hard to review. Thanks -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers