Re: ON CONFLICT DO SELECT (take 3)
| От | Viktor Holmberg |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: ON CONFLICT DO SELECT (take 3) |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 8b107b01-6e94-4919-a3bf-66af22c17899@Spark обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: ON CONFLICT DO SELECT (take 3) (Viktor Holmberg <v@viktorh.net>) |
| Ответы |
Re: ON CONFLICT DO SELECT (take 3)
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 21 Jan 2026 at 21:06 +0100, Viktor Holmberg <v@viktorh.net>, wrote:
There are some white spaces in v19.
Sorry, what do you mean "white spaces”? Is it a problem?
it's time to squash the patchset into one, IMHO.
you can also begin to write the draft commit message, explain what this is all
about.
Yes, done.
ExecOnConflictSelect
if (lockStrength == LCS_NONE)
{
/* Evem if the tuple is deleted, it must still be physically present */
Assert(table_tuple_fetch_row_version(relation, conflictTid,
SnapshotAny, existing));
}
this is wrong, i think.
buildtype=release, the Assert macro will always be true,
the whole Assert may be optimized out,
and later code would have trouble using (TupleTableSlot *existing).
Yes, you’re right. Nice catch. Fixed.
updatable_views.sql: I did some ON CONFLICT DO SELECT permissions checks, and
other tests in it, please check attached.
Added
-----
I’ve updated all the comments you mentioned.
Thanks for the review Jian, I’m hoping we’ve caught all the issues now.
Please find v20 attached.
I went through all mentions of ON CONFLICT in the codebase to see there are no more forgotten comments/docs, and found 2 more places to update.
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: