Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Yqn3H-0001Ky-Ec for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 08 May 2015 18:31:11 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Yqn3G-0005Bz-Qu for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 08 May 2015 18:31:10 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Yqn3F-0005Bs-K9 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Fri, 08 May 2015 18:31:09 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1Yqn3D-0003Mj-1U for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Fri, 08 May 2015 18:31:08 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t48IUkkt017474; Fri, 8 May 2015 14:30:46 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Andres Freund cc: Peter Geoghegan , Heikki Linnakangas , Jeff Janes , Stephen Frost , Dean Rasheed , Bruce Momjian , Pg Hackers Subject: Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 In-reply-to: <20150508181445.GS12950@alap3.anarazel.de> References: <20150508150340.GJ12950@alap3.anarazel.de> <9096.1431102730@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20150508165246.GO12950@alap3.anarazel.de> <10633.1431105922@sss.pgh.pa.us> <554CF44B.3080808@iki.fi> <20150508180636.GR12950@alap3.anarazel.de> <20150508181445.GS12950@alap3.anarazel.de> Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund message dated "Fri, 08 May 2015 20:14:45 +0200" Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 14:30:46 -0400 Message-ID: <17473.1431109846@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Andres Freund writes: > On 2015-05-08 11:10:00 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> +1. I knew we should have done this before commit. > Hrmpf. > I couldn't hit the problem with CCA unfortunately, even after a bunch of > tries; quite possibly it's too fast on my laptop. Maybe just hold an open transaction in another session while you do what the regression test does? I think this is probably not a matter of CCA per se but just timing. It's unfortunate that the test in question is run serially without other transactions occurring concurrently, as that would likely have exposed the problem far sooner. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers