public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Michail Nikolaev <[email protected]>
To: Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) <[email protected]>
Cc: Amit Kapila <[email protected]>
Cc: Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Cc: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [BUG?] check_exclusion_or_unique_constraint false negative
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:31:55 +0200
Message-ID: <CANtu0oh69b+VCiASX86dF_eY=9=A2RmMQ_+0+uxZ_Zir+oNhhw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <OS0PR01MB5716E30952F542E256DD72E294802@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CANtu0oiktqQ2pwExoXqDpByXNCJa-KE5vQRodTRnmFHN_+qwHg@mail.gmail.com>
<CANtu0ohU2XRV9shtu14CffLPDS1x10q7ebOGf-vX0p+45_L8jw@mail.gmail.com>
<CANtu0oh0tspW-xWzDGWP9ehz96KPt9aUP1c9JYhdBYxKsB0jpA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANtu0ohUB9ky45iiMAYN1fGyt82+cg=+UYBom=P7drb+=97G9w@mail.gmail.com>
<TYAPR01MB56921C9C3D21B0D62FF76330F5B22@TYAPR01MB5692.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<CANtu0og=5v4j8onS4nyJ4zMPdh-EPFxmiEi5PLoyZrmqHA6RKw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA4eK1Jfb0xviXYon-_TvHNKeAY7ngAeo++Knu-0RPR6EkSBjA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANtu0ohHmYXsK5bxU9Thcq1FbELLAk0S2Zap0r8AnU3OTmcCOA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA4eK1+_V1PWXrrgAM01p+CByP6JwYRxejZrcxOu83a-v_+zZg@mail.gmail.com>
<CANtu0ogDDQnXbrv6p7Xtc2dT_MZ1fjdPgB9-0B5Lw1b4pQGd2A@mail.gmail.com>
<OS0PR01MB5716FFD8DBBADB55E8E6935994852@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<CANtu0oiziTBM8+WDtkktMZv0rhGBroYGWwqSQW+MzOWpmk-XEw@mail.gmail.com>
<OS0PR01MB5716E30952F542E256DD72E294802@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Hello!
> In addition, I think the bug is not a blocker for the conflict detection
> feature. As the feature simply reports the current behavior of the logical
> apply worker (either unique violation or tuple missing) without
introducing any
> new functionality. Furthermore, I think that the new
ExecCheckIndexConstraints
> call after ExecInsertIndexTuples() is not affected by the dirty snapshot
bug.
> This is because a tuple has already been inserted into the btree before
the
> dirty snapshot scan, which means that a concurrent non-HOT update would
not be
> possible (it would be blocked after finding the just inserted tuple and
wait
> for the apply worker to commit the current transaction).
> It would be good if others could also share their opinion on this.
Yes, you are right. At least, I can't find any scenario for that case.
Best regards,
Mikhail.
view thread (37+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [BUG?] check_exclusion_or_unique_constraint false negative
In-Reply-To: <CANtu0oh69b+VCiASX86dF_eY=9=A2RmMQ_+0+uxZ_Zir+oNhhw@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox