On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 3:54 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:
> Simon's approach would actually pass that test case just fine. It inserts
> the (promise) index tuple first, and heap tuple only after that. It will
> fail the test case with more than one unique index, however.
Oh, I see. Still, I don't think you need to UPDATE a
uniquely-constrained attribute - even if updating constrained
attributes is rare (dubious), non-HOT updates will have the same
effect, no? I still think that's unacceptable.
In any case, I still don't see what this buys us over the other two
designs. What's the pay-off for giving up on the general avoidance of
unprincipled deadlocks?
--
Peter Geoghegan
