Feedback-ID: ie3de48e3:Fastmail
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2025 18:45:35 +0100
From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
	Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu@gmail.com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Issues with ON CONFLICT UPDATE and REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
Message-ID: <202511251737.kuptxwylgmtx@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADzfLwW2VkOrUujmWa2=5n_RY3onrFG4apqqyx8as1+F0USMMA@mail.gmail.com>
 <aSTY9z_b4PzZNSap@paquier.xyz>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202511251737.kuptxwylgmtx%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2025-Nov-24, Mihail Nikalayeu wrote:

> In a few words - it is an attempt to make sure the test goes to the
> wake-up backend only after it actually enters to wait mode. For that
> reason an additional 'notice' point is used by spec.
> I have proposed another possible solution for the [0] thread.

That makes sense.  I pushed it now, many thanks.


On 2025-Nov-25, Michael Paquier wrote:

> Reading through bc32a12e0db2, I am puzzled by the committed result
> here:
> +#ifdef USE_INJECTION_POINTS
> +   if (conflict)
> +       INJECTION_POINT("check-exclusion-or-unique-constraint-conflict", NULL);
> +   else
> +       INJECTION_POINT("check-exclusion-or-unique-constraint-no-conflict", NULL);
> +#endif

> If you have no plans for it in the long-term, I'd rather remove it
> from the tree, rather than keep it.

Removed.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera         PostgreSQL Developer  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"We have labored long to build a heaven, only to find it
populated with horrors"                        (Prof. Milton Glass)