Horton

Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}

Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>
To: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>, Anssi Kääriäinen <anssi.kaariainen@thl.fi>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2014-12-16T07:06:01Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Also, in both Linux and MinGW under option 1 patch I get an OID conflict on
>> OID 3261.
>
> I'll take a pass at fixing this bitrot soon. I'll follow Tom's advice
> about macro collisions on MinGW while I'm at it, since his explanation
> seems plausible.

Attached pair of revised patch sets fix the OID collision, and
presumably fix the MinGW issue (because IGNORE_P is now used as a
token name). It also polishes approach #2 to value locking in a few
places (e.g. better comments). Finally, both patches have a minor
buglet around EXPLAIN ANALYZE output fixed -- the output now indicates
if tuples are pulled up from auxiliary update nodes.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

Commits

  1. Change the way we mark tuples as frozen.

  2. Add documentation for data-modifying statements in WITH clauses.