Re: Refactoring speculative insertion with unique indexes a little - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: Refactoring speculative insertion with unique indexes a little
Date
Msg-id CAM3SWZRNnwcXCBVwoTzeBHTDeaJd5tNZ66aCqif-k03kBFTm6w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Refactoring speculative insertion with unique indexes a little  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
Responses Re: Refactoring speculative insertion with unique indexes a little  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Re: Refactoring speculative insertion with unique indexes a little  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
>> In any case, at this point 9.5 is really aimed to be stabilized, so
>> targeting only master is a far saner approach IMO for this patch.
>> Pushing that in 9.5 a couple of months back may have given enough
>> reason to do so... But well life is life.
>
> No, this really isn't an optimization at all.

I should add: I think that the chances of this patch destabilizing the
code are very slim, once it receives the proper review. Certainly, I
foresee no possible downside to not inserting the doomed IndexTuple,
since it's guaranteed to have its heap tuple super-deleted immediately
afterwards.

That's the only real behavioral change proposed here. So, I would
prefer it if we got this in before the first stable release of 9.5.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Gaetano Mendola
Date:
Subject: pg_tables bug?
Next
From: Kenan Yao
Date:
Subject: A question regarding LWLock in ProcSleep