Re: WIP: Detecting SSI conflicts before reporting constraint violations - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: WIP: Detecting SSI conflicts before reporting constraint violations
Date
Msg-id CAEepm=3ZkkeWQwrM+JUKMqH8ECJLZhguwb12U-eaAcx45nbAiQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WIP: Detecting SSI conflicts before reporting constraint violations  (Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: WIP: Detecting SSI conflicts before reporting constraint violations  (Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 3:26 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
>> We agree its a bug, so the deadline doesn't need to constrain us.
>
> I'm not sure there is consensus across the community on that.
>
>> I suggest we should apply what we have then fix the rest later
>> when we work out how.
>
> On that, I agree.  I will push what we have before the deadline
> today, since it would cover about 90% of the SSI complaints I've
> seen.

Here is a version that includes an attempt to describe the situation
in the documentation.  The first three sentences highlight the general
problem and apply to all versions since 9.1.  Then the rest of the
paragraph beginning "This can be avoided ..." describes the improved
situation in 9.6 if this patch is committed.

--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Merlin Moncure
Date:
Subject: Re: Why the "UPDATE tab SET tab.col" is invalid?
Next
From: Alexander Korotkov
Date:
Subject: Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics