Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 17:40:30 +0200
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>
Cc: hlinnaka <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>,
 Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>,
 Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
 Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0
Message-ID: <20150505154030.GI9855@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: 
 <CAM3SWZTGE0z5_E8wRi9wt3qgOiMpSwtwr5uDcZDGhRZ1_pz6vg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAM3SWZTGE0z5_E8wRi9wt3qgOiMpSwtwr5uDcZDGhRZ1_pz6vg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Hi,

On 2015-04-26 18:02:06 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Remaining challenges
> =================

One additional thing I'm wondering about is the following: Right now
INSERT ... ON CONFLICT NOTHING does not acquire a row level lock on the
'target' tuple. Are we really ok with that? Because in this form ON
CONFLICT NOTHING really doesn't guarantee much, the conflicting tuple
could just be deleted directly after the check.  ISTM we should just
acquire the lock in the same way ExecOnConflictUpdate does. In the
majority of the cases that'll be what users actually expect
behaviourally.

Greetings,

Andres Freund


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers