Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} 2.0
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} 2.0 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 54E7A207.5070301@vmware.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} 2.0 (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} 2.0
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 02/20/2015 10:39 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Heikki Linnakangas > <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote: >> So, um, are you agreeing that there is no problem? Or did I misunderstand? >> If you see a potential issue here, can you explain it as a simple list of >> steps, please. > > Yes. I'm saying that AFAICT, there is no livelock hazard provided > other sessions must do the pre-check (as they must for ON CONFLICT > IGNORE). So I continue to believe that they must pre-check, which you > questioned. > ... > Hard to break down the problem into steps, since it isn't a problem > that I was able to recreate (as a noticeable livelock). Then I refuse to believe that the livelock hazard exists, without the pre-check. If you have a livelock scenario in mind, it really shouldn't be that difficult to write down the list of steps. - Heikki
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: