On 2015-04-23 12:45:59 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:55 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > I think you misread my statement: I'm saying we don't need the new
> > argument anymore, even if we still do the super-deletion in
> > heap_delete(). Now that the speculative insertion will not be visible
> > (as in seen on a tuple they could delete) to other backends we can just
> > do the super deletion if we see that the tuple is a promise one.
>
> I disagree. I think it's appropriate that the one and only "super"
> heap_delete() caller make a point of indicating that that's what it's
> doing. The cost is only that the two other such callers must say that
> they're not doing it. Super deletion is a special thing, that logical
> decoding knows all about for example, and I think it's appropriate
> that callers ask explicitly.
Unconvinced. Not breaking an API has its worth.
> The second most significant open item is rebasing on top of the recent
> RLS changes, IMV.
Not sure I agree. That part seems pretty mechanical to me.
* The docs aren't suitable for endusers. I think this will take a fair amount of work.
* We're not yet sure about the syntax yet. In addition to the keyword issue I'm unconvinced about having two WHERE
clausesin the same statement. I think that'll end up confusing users a fair bit. Might still be the best way forward.
* The executor integration still isn't pretty, although Heikki is making strides there
* I don't think anybody seriously has looked at the planner side yet.
Greetings,
Andres Freund