Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} 2.0 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Heikki Linnakangas
Subject Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} 2.0
Date
Msg-id 54E7A207.5070301@vmware.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} 2.0  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
Responses Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} 2.0  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
List 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




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Eric Grinstein
Date:
Subject: Idea: GSoC - Query Rewrite with Materialized Views
Next
From: David Fetter
Date:
Subject: Re: POLA violation with \c service=